lEx  IGtbrtB 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
"Ever'thincj  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book." 


Digitized  by 

the  Internet  Archive 

in  2013 

http://archive.org/details/insteadofbookbymOOtuck 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK 


By  A  Man  Too  Busy  to  Write  One 


A  FRAGMENTARY  EXPOSITION  OF 

PHILOSOPHICAL  ANARCHISM 

/ 


CULLED  FROM  THE  WRITINGS  OF 

BENJ.  R.  TUCKER 

Editor  of  Liberty 


Liberty,  Not  the  Daughter,  but  the  Mother  of  Order. — Proudhon 


NEW  YORK 
BENJ.  R.  TUCKER,  Publisher 

1893 


to* 


Foy  always  in  thine  eyes,  O  Liberty  ! 

Shines  that  high  light  whereby  the  world  is  saved  ; 

And  though  thou  slay  us,  we  will  trust  in  thee. 

John  Hay. 


In  abolishing  rent  and  interest,  the  last  vestiges  of  old-time  slavery,  the  Revolu- 
tion abolishes  at  one  stroke  the  sword  of  the  executioner,  the  seal  of  the  magistrate, 
the  club  of  the  policeman,  the  gauge  of  the  exciseman,  the  erasing-knife  of  the 
department  clerk,  all  those  insignia  of  Politics,  which  young  Liberty  grinds  beneath 
her  heel. 

Proudhon. 


Zo  the  /iftemor^ 

OF 

My  Old  Friend  and  Master 

JOSIAH  WARREN 

Whose  Teachings  were  My  First  Source  of  Light 
I  Gratefully  Dedicate  this  Volume 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Preface,   .   ix 

State  Socialism  and  Anarchism  :  How  Far  They  Agree  and 

Wherein  They  Differ,  i 

The  Individual,  Society,  and  the  State,  19 

The  Relation  of  the  State  to  the  Individual,  .  .  .  .21 
Contract  or  Organism,  What's  That  to  Us  ?      .       .       .  .31 

The  Nature  of  the  State,  34 

A  Misinterpretation  of  Anarchism,  38 

Mr.  Levy's  Maximum,  40 

Resistance  to  Taxation,  43 

A  Puppet  for  a  God,   .       .   46 

Mr.  Perrine's  Difficulties,  50 

Where  We  Stand,  52 

Tu-Whit !  Tu-Whoo  !  55 

Rights  and  Duties  Under  Anarchy,  58 

More  Questions,  61 

Mr.  Blodgett's  Final  Question,  62 

Trying  to  Be  and  Not  to  Be,  63 

My  Explanation,  65 

A  Plea  for  Non-Resistance,       .  67 

Liberty  and  Aggression,     ........  72 

Rule  or  Resistance — Which?  75 

The  Advisability  of  Violence,  78 

Mr.  Pentecost  an  Abettor  of  Government,  81 

The  Philosopher  of  the  Disembodied,  82 

The  Woes  of  an  Anarchist,        .......  89 

The  Moral  of  Mr.  Donisthorpe's  Woes,  9S 

L'Etat  est  Mort  ;  Vive  l'Etat !    .       ...       .       .       .  .99 

Voluntary  Co-operation  v      .       .       .  103 

L'Etat,  C'est  l'Ennemi,   .       .  105 

A  Libertarian's  Pet  Despotisms,  115 

Defensive  Despotism,        ........  116 

Still  in  the  Procrustean  Bed,      .       .       .       .       .       .  .116 

Pinney  Struggling  with  Procrustes,  118 

A  Back  Town  Heard  From,  120 

In  Form  a  Reply,  In  Reality  a  Surrender,  122 

Fool  Voters  and  Fool  Editors,  125 

Ergo  and  Presto,  126 

Y 


VI  CONTENTS. 


The  Right  of  Ownership  ,       t       #  I2g 

Individual  Sovereignty  Our  Goal,  .  .  .  .  ,  !  131 
New  Abolition  and  Its  Nine  Demands,  133 
Compulsory  Education  Not  Anarchistic,  .  .  .  .  .  134 
Relations  Between  Parents  and  Children,  ....*'.  136 
Compulsory  Education  and  Anarchism,     .       .       .       ,  .143 

Children  Under  Anarchy,  , 

Not  a  Decree,  but  a  Prophecy,   .......  146 

Anarchy  and  Rape,   [  I49 

An  Unfortunate  Analogy,  [       [  .150 

The  Boycott  and  Its  Limit,        .       .       .       .       .       '  .152 

A  Case  Where  Discussion  Convinced,       .  \  153 

A  Spirit  More  Evil  Than  Alcohol,     ......  154 

A  Word  About  Capital  Punishment,  .       .       .       .       !       ^  156 

No  Place  for  a  Promise,   Xc7 

On  Picket  Duty,  .'       .  158 

Money  and  Interest,  '  '  I7e 

"Who  is  the  Somebody?"  .       ...'!!!.'  177 

Reform  Made  Ridiculous,  '  .179 

A  Defence  of  Capital,   ^ 

"The  Position  of  William,"  181 

Capital's  Claim  to  Increase,  \  183 

A  Baseless  Charge,     »...!....       ]  186 

Another  Answer  to  Mr.  Babcock,      ......  189 

Attention,  "  Apex  !".......  189 

Usury,        ........'..*;  190 

Apex  or  Basis,   IQI 

"The  Position  of  William,"  !  199 

Economic  Hodge-Podge,  200 

An  Unwarranted  Question,  *  208 

An  Alleged  Flaw  in  Anarchy,  209 

Shall  the  Transfer  Papers  be  Taxed  ?  ]  212 

Money  and  Capital,  '  215 

To-day's  View  of  Interest,  .217 

To-day's  Excellent  Fooling,  '  22o 

Government  and  Value,   [  222 

The  Power  of  Government  Over  Values,  223 

Free  Trade  in  Banking,      ........  227 

Currency  and  Government,  235 

The  Equalization  of  Wage  and  Product,     .       .       ,       .  .237 

A  False  Idea  of  Freedom   .       '.  245 

Monopoly,  Communism,  and  Liberty,  246 

Pinney  His  Own  Procrustes,  248 

Ten  Questions  Briefly  Answered,  252 

A  Standard  of  Value  a  Necessity,  253 

A  Necessity  or  a  Delusion— Which  ?  .  256 

Anarchy's  New  Ally,  .  259 

Economic  Superstition,  260 

A  Book  That  is  Not  Milk  for  Babes,  .       .       .       .       .'  .262 

State  Banking  Versus  Mutual  Banking  265 

Mr.  Bilgram's  Rejoinder,  268 

Free  Money,  '  269 

Free  Money  First,  273 

Stop  the  Main  Leak  First,  274 


CONTENTS.  Vii 

PAGE 

An  Indispensable  Accident,  .  276 
Leland  Stanford's  Land  Bank,  278 
Mutualism  in  the  Service  of  Capital,  ......  281 

Edward  Atkinson's  Evolution,  282 

A  Greenbacker  in  a  Corner,  284 

Free  Money  and  the  Cost  Principle,  286 

Proudhon's  Bank,  287 

Why  Wages  Should  Absorb  Profits,  289 

A  Great  Idea  Perverted,  290 

On  Picket  Duty,  292 

Land  and  Rent,  297 

"  The  Land  for  the  People, "  299 

Basic  Principles  of  Economics  :  Rent,      .  300 

Rent  :  Parting  Words,  304 

Property  Under  Anarchism,  309 

Mere  Land  No  Saviour  for  Labor,  313 

Henry  George's  "Secondary  Factors,"  314 

The  State  Socialists  and  Henry  George,  315 

Liberty  and  the  George  Theory,  316 

A  Criticism  That  Does  Not  Apply,  322 

Land  Occupancy  and  Its  Conditions,  ......  324 

Competitive  Protection,      ........  326 

Protection,  and  Its  Relation  to  Rent,  328 

Liberty  and  Land,  333 

Rent,  and  Its  Collection  by  Force,  337 

The  Distribution  of  Rent,  339 

Economic  Rent,  343 

Liberty  and  Property,  348 

Going  to  Pieces  on  the  Rocks,  351 

"  Simplifying  Government,"  352 

On  Picket  Duty,  353 

Socialism,  359 

Socialism :  What  It  Is,       ...       .       ...  361 

Armies  That  Overlap,  363 

Socialism  and  the  Lexicographers,     ......  365 

The  Sin  of  Herbert  Spencer,      .......  370 

Will  Professor  Sumner  Choose  ?        ......  371 

After  Freiheit,  Der  Sozialist,      .......  375 

State  Socialism  and  Liberty,       .......  377 

On  Picket  Duty,  378 

Communism,  381 

General  Walker  and  the  Anarchists  383 

Herr  Most  on  Libertas,  393 

Still  Avoiding  the  Issue,  397 

Herr  Most  Distilled  and  Consumed,  401 

Should  Labor  be  Paid  or  Not?  403 

Does  Competition  Mean  War?    .......  404 

Competition  and  Monopoly  Confounded,  406 

On  Picket  Duty,  407 

Methods,   409 

The  Power  of  Passive  Resistance,     .       .       .       .       .  .411 

The  Irish  Situation  in  1881,        .......  414 

The  Method  of  Anarchy,  415 

Theoretical  Methods,  417 


viii 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

A  Seed  Planted,   420 

The  "Home  Guard"  Heard  From,  421 

Colonization,  423 

Labor's  New  Fetich,   .........  424 

Mr.  Pentecost's  Belief  in  the  Ballot,  426 

A  Principle  of  Social  Therapeutics,  427 

The  Morality  of  Terrorism,  428 

The  Beast  of  Communism,  ........  429 

Time  Will  Tell,  434 

The  Facts  Coming  to  Light,       .......  435 

Liberty  and  Violence,         .  439 

Convicted  by  a  Packed  Jury,      .......  442 

Why  Expect  Justice  from  the  State  ?  444 

The  Lesson  of  the  Hour,  446 

Convicted  for  Their  Opinions,  447 

To  the  Breach,  Comrades  !  448 

On  Picket  Duty,  ..........  449 

Miscellaneous,  451 

The  Lesson  of  Homestead,  453 

Save  Labor  from  Its  Friends,      .......  455 

Is  Frick  a  Soldier  of  Liberty?  457 

Shall  Strikers  be  Court-Martialled  ?  459 

Census-Taking  Fatal  to  Monopoly,  461 

Anarchy  Necessarily  Atheistic,  463 

A  Fable  for  Malthusians,    ........  465 

Auberon  Herbert  and  His  Work,       ......  469 

Solutions  of  the  Labor  Problem,  .......  472 

Karl  Marx  as  Friend  and  Foe,    ...  ...  476 

Do  the  Knights  of  Labor  Love  Liberty  ?  480 

Play-House  Philanthropy,  483 

Beware  of  Batterson  !  487 

A  Gratifying  Discovery,  489 

Cases  of  Lamentable  Longevity,        ......  490 

Spooner  Memorial  Resolutions,  .       .       .       ...       .       .  491 

On  Picket  Duty,  .   493 

Index,     .  497 


PREFACE. 


'  *  Instead  of  a  book  ! "  I  hear  the  reader  exclaim,  as  he  picks  up  this 
volume  and  glances  at  its  title  ;  "  why,  it  is  a  book."  To  all  appearance, 
yes  ;  essentially,  no.  It  is,  to  be  sure,  an  assemblage  within  a  cover  of 
printed  sheets  consecutively  numbered  ;  but  this  alone  does  not  constitute 
a  book.  A  book,  properly  speaking,  is  first  of  all  a  thing  of  unity  and 
symmetry,  of  order  and  finish  ;  it  is  a  literary  structure,  each  part  of  which 
is  subordinated  to  the  whole  and  created  for  it.  To  satisfy  such  a  standard 
this  volume  does  not  pretend  ;  it  is  not  a  structure,  but  an  afterthought, 
a  more  or  less  coherent  arrangement,  each  part  of  which  was  created 
almost  without  reference  to  any  other.  Yet  not  quite  so,  after  all ;  other- 
wise even  the  smallest  degree  of  coherence  were  scarcely  possible. 

The  facts  are  these.  In  August,  1881,  I  started  in  Boston,  in  a  very 
quiet  way,  a  little  fortnightly  journal  called  Liberty.  Its  purpose  was  to 
contribute  to  the  solution  of  social  problems  by  carrying  to  a  logical  con- 
clusion the  battle  against  authority,— to  aid  in  what  Proudhon  had  called 
"the  dissolution  of  government  in  the  economic  organism."  Beyond  the 
opportunity  of  thus  contributing  my  mite  I  looked  for  little  from  my  ex- 
periment. But,  almost  before  I  knew  it,  the  tiny  paper  had  begun  to 
exert  an  influence  of  which  I  had  not  dreamed.  It  went  the  wide  world  over. 
In  nearly  every  important  city,  and  in  many  a  country  town,  it  found 
some  mind  ripe  for  its  reception.  Each  of  these  minds  became  a  centre  of 
influence,  and  in  considerably  less  than  a  year  a  specific  movement  had 
sprung  into  existence,  under  Proudhon's  happily  chosen  name,  Anarchism, 
of  which  Liberty  was  generally  recognized  as  the  organ.  Since  that  time, 
through  varying  fortunes,  the  paper  has  gone  on,  with  slow  but  steady 
growth,  doing  its  quiet  work.  Books  inspired  by  it,  and  other  journals 
which  it  called  into  being,  have  made  their  appearance,  not  only  in  various 
parts  of  the  United  States,  but  in  England,  France,  Germany,  and  at  the 
antipodes.  Anarchism  is  now  one  of  the  forces  of  the  world.  But  its 
literature,  voluminous  as  it  already  is,  lacks  a  systematic  text-book.  I 
have  often  been  urged  to  attempt  the  task  of  writing  one.    Thus  far, 

ix 


X 


PREFACE. 


however,  I  have  been  too  busy,  and  there  is  no  prospect  that  I  shall  ever 
be  less  so.  Pending  the  arrival  of  the  man  having  the  requisite  time, 
means,  and  ability  for  the  production  of  the  desired  book,  it  has  been  de- 
termined to  put  forth,  as  a  sort  of  makeshift,  this  partial  collection  of  my 
writings  for  Liberty,  giving  them,  by  an  attempt  at  classification,  some 
semblance  of  system  ;  the  thought  being  that,  if  these  writings,  scattered 
in  bits  here,  there,  and  everywhere,  have  already  influenced  so  many 
minds,  they  ought  in  a  compact  and  cumulative  form  to  influence  very 
many  more. 

The  volume  opens  with  a  paper  on  "  State  Socialism  and  Anarchism," 
which  covers  in  a  summary  way  nearly  the  entire  scope  of  the  work. 
Following  this  is  the  main  section,  "The  Individual,  Society,  and  the 
State,"  dealing  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  human  association.  In 
the  third  and  fourth  sections  application  of  these  principles  is  made  to  the 
two  great  economic  factors,  money  and  land.  In  these  two  sections, 
moreover,  as  well  as  in  the  fifth  and  sixth,  the  various  authoritarian  social 
solutions  which  go  counter  to  these  principles  are  dealt  with, — namely, 
Greenbackism,  the  Single  Tax,  State  Socialism,  and  so-called  "  Com- 
munistic Anarchism."  The  seventh  section  treats  of  the  methods  by 
which  these  principles  can  be  realized  ;  and  in  the  eighth  are  grouped  nu- 
merous articles  scarcely  within  the  scheme  of  classification,  but  which  it 
has  seemed  best  for  various  reasons  to  preserve.  For  the  elaborate  index 
to  the  whole  the  readers  are  indebted  to  my  friends  Francis  D.  Tandy  and 
Henry  Cohen,  of  Denver,  Colo. 

The  matter  in  this  volume  is  largely  controversial.  This  has  frequently 
necessitated  the  reproduction  of  other  articles  than  the  author's  (distin- 
guished by  a  different  type),  in  order  to  make  the  author's  intelligible.  A 
volume  thus  made  must  be  characterized  by  many  faults,  both  of  style 
and  substance.  I  am  too  busy,  not  only  to  write  a  book,  but  to  satisfac- 
torily revise  this  substitute.  With  but  few  and  slight  exceptions,  the 
articles  stand  as  originally  written.  Much  they  contain  that  is  personal 
and  irrelevant,  and  that  would  not  have  found  its  way  into  a  book  spe- 
cially prepared.  It  would  be  strange,  too,  if  in  writings  covering  a  period 
of  twelve  years  there  were  not  some  inconsistencies,  especially  in  the 
terminology  and  form  of  expression.  For  such,  if  any  there  be,  and  for 
all  minor  weaknesses,  I  crave,  because  of  the  circumstances,  a  measure  of 
indulgence  from  the  critic.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  I  challenge  the  most 
searching  examination  of  the  central  positions  taken.  Undamaged  by 
the  constant  fire  of  twelve  years  of  controversy,  they  are  proof,  in  my 
judgment,  against  the  heaviest  guns.  Apologizing,  therefore,  for  their 
form  only,  and  full  of  faith  in  their  power,  I  offer  these  pages  to  the 

public  INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 

B.  R.  T. 


STATE  SOCIALISM  AND  ANARCHISM  : 

HOW  FAR  THEY  AGREE,  AND  WHEREIN  THEY  DIFFER. 


STATE  SOCIALISM  AND  ANARCHISM:* 


HOW  FAR  THEY  AGREE,  AND  WHEREIN  THEY  DIFFER. 


Probably  no  agitation  has  ever  attained  the  magnitude, 
either  in  the  number  of  its  recruits  or  the  area  of  its  influ- 
ence, which  has  been  attained  by  Modern  Socialism,  and  at 
the  same  time  been  so  little  understood  and  so  misunderstood, 
not  only  by  the  hostile  and  the  indifferent,  but  by  the  friendly, 
and  even  by  the  great  mass  of  its  adherents  themselves.  This 
unfortunate  and  highly  dangerous  state  of  things  is  due  partly 
to  the  fact  that  the  human  relationships  which  this  move- 
ment— if  anything  so  chaotic  can  be  called  a  movement — aims 
to  transform,  involve  no  special  class  or  classes,  but  literally  all 
mankind;  partly  to  the  fact  that  these  relationships  are  infi- 
nitely more  varied  and  complex  in  their  nature  than  those 
with  which  any  special  reform  has  ever  been  called  upon  to 


*  In  the  summer  of  1886,  shorcly  after  the  bomb-throwing  at  Chicago, 
the  author  of  this  volume  received  an  invitation  from  the  editor  of  the 
North  American  Review  to  furnish  him  a  paper  on  Anarchism.  In  re- 
sponse the  above  article  was  sent  him.  A  few  days  later  the  author  re- 
ceived a  letter  announcing  the  acceptance  of  his  paper,  the  editor  volun- 
teering the  declaration  that  it  was  the  ablest  article  that  he  had  received 
during  his  editorship  of  the  Review.  The  next  number  of  the  Review  bore 
the  announcement,  on  the  second  page  of  its  cover,  that  the  article  (giving 
its  title  and  the  name  of  the  author)  would  appear  at  an  early  date. 
Month  after  month  went  by,  and  the  article  did  not  appear.  Repeated 
letters  of  inquiry  failed  to  bring  any  explanation.  Finally,  after  nearly  a 
year  had  elapsed,  the  author  wrote  to  the  editor  that  he  had  prepared  the 
article,  not  to  be  pigeon-holed,  but  to  be  printed,  and  that  he  wished  the 
matter  to  be  acted  upon  immediately.  In  reply  he  received  his  manuscript 
and  a  check  for  seventy-five  dollars.  Thereupon  he  made  a  few  slight 
changes  in  the  article  and  delivered  it  on  several  occasions  as  a  lecture,  after 
which  it  was  printed  in  Liberty  of  March  10,  1888. 


3 


• 

4 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


deal;  and  partly  to  the  fact  that  the  great  moulding  forces  of 
society,  the  channels  of  information  and  enlightenment,  are 
well-nigh  exclusively  under  the  control  of  those  whose  im- 
mediate pecuniary  interests  are  antagonistic  to  the  bottom 
claim  of  Socialism  that  labor  should  be  put  in  possession  of 
its  own. 

Almost  the  only  persons  who  may  be  said  to  comprehend 
even  approximately  the  significance,  principles,  and  purposes 
of  Socialism  are  the  chief  leaders  of  the  extreme  wings  of  the 
Socialistic  forces,  and  perhaps  a  few  of  the  money  kings  them- 
selves. It  is  a  subject  of  which  it  has  lately  become  quite 
the  fashion  for  preacher,  professor,  and  penny-a-liner  to  treat, 
and,  for  the  most  part,  woful  work  they  have  made  with  it, 
exciting  the  derision  and  pity  of  those  competent  to  judge. 
That  those  prominent  in  the  intermediate  Socialistic  divisions 
do  not  fully  understand  what  they  are  about  is  evident  from 
the  positions  they  occupy.  If  they  did  ;  if  they  were  consist- 
ent, logical  thinkers  ;  if  they  were  what  the  French  call  conse- 
quent men, — their  reasoning  faculties  would  long  since  have 
driven  them  to  one  extreme  or  the  other. 

For  it  is  a  curious  fact  that  the  two  extremes  of  the  vast 
army  now  under  consideration,  though  united,  as  has  been 
hinted  above,  by  the  common  claim  that  labor  shall  be  put  in 
possession  of  its  own,  are  more  diametrically  opposed  to  each 
other  in  their  fundamental  principles  of  social  action  and  their 
methods  of  reaching  the  ends  aimed  at  than  either  is  to  their 
common  enemy,  the  existing  society.  They  are  based  on  two 
principles  the  history  of  whose  conflict  is  almost  equivalent  to 
the  history  of  the  world  since  man  came  into  it;  and  all  inter- 
mediate parties,  including  that  of  the  upholders  of  the  exist- 
ing society,  are  based  upon  a  compromise  between  them.  It 
is  clear,  then,  that  any  intelligent,  deep-rooted  opposition  to 
the  prevailing  order  of  things  must  come  from  one  or  the 
other  of  these  extremes,  for  anything  from  any  other  source, 
far  from  being  revolutionary  in  character,  could  be  only  in  the 
nature  of  such  superficial  modification  as  would  be  utterly 
unable  to  concentrate  upon  itself  the  degree  of  attention  and 
interest  now  bestowed  upon  Modern  Socialism. 

The  two  principles  referred  to  are  Authority  and  Liberty, 
and  the  names  of  the  two  schools  of  Socialistic  thought  which 
fully  and  unreservedly  represent  one  or  the  other  of  them  are, 
respectively,  State  Socialism  and  Anarchism.  Whoso  knows 
what  these  two  schools  want  and  how  they  propose  to  get  it 
understands  the  Socialistic  movement.  For,  just  as  it  has 
been  said  that  there  is  no  half-way  house  between  Rome  and 


STATE  SOCIALISM  AND  ANARCHISM. 


5 


Reason,  so  it  may  be  said  that  there  is  no  half-way  house  be- 
tween State  Socialism  and  Anarchism.  There  are,  in  fact, 
two  currents  steadily  flowing  from  the  centre  of  the  Socialistic 
forces  which  are  concentrating  them  on  the  left  and  on  the 
right;  and,  if  Socialism  is  to  prevail,  it  is  among  the  possibili- 
ties that,  after  this  movement  of  separation  has  been  com- 
pleted and  the  existing  order  has  been  crushed  out  between 
the  two  camps,  the  ultimate  and  bitterer  conflict  will  be  still 
to  come.  In  that  case  all  the  eight-hour  men,  all  the  trades- 
unionists,  all  the  Knights  of  Labor,  all  the  land  nationalization- 
ists,  all  the  greenbackers,  and,  in  short,  all  the  members  of  the 
thousand  and  one  different  battalions  belonging  to  the  great 
army  of  Labor,  will  have  deserted  their  old  posts,  and,  these 
being  arrayed  on  the  one  side  and  the  other,  the  great  battle 
will  begin.  What  a  final  victory  for  the  State  Socialists  will 
mean,  and  what  a  firial  victory  for  the  Anarchists  will  mean, 
it  is  the  purpose  of  this  paper  to  briefly  state. 

To  do  this  intelligently,  however,  I  must  first  describe  the 
ground  common  to  both,  the  features  that  make  Socialists  of 
each  of  them. 

The  economic  principles  of  Modern  Socialism  are  a  logical 
deduction  from  the  principle  laid  down  by  Adam  Smith  in 
the  early  chapters  of  his  "  Wealth  of  Nations," —  namely,  that 
labor  is  the  true  measure  of  price.  But  Adam  Smith,  after 
stating  this  principle  most  clearly  and  concisely,  immediately 
abandoned  all  further  consideration  of  it  to  devote  himself  to 
showing  what  actually  does  measure  price,  and  how,  therefore, 
wealth  is  at  present  distributed.  Since  his  day  nearly  all  the 
political  economists  have  followed  his  example  by  confining 
their  function  to  the  description  of  society  as  it  is,  in  its  in- 
dustrial and  commercial  phases.  Socialism,  on  the  contrary, 
extends  its  function  to  the  description  of  society  as  it  should 
be,  and  the  discovery  of  the  means  of  making  it  what  it 
should  be.  Half  a  century  or  more  after  Smith  enunciated 
the  principle  above  stated,  Socialism  picked  it  up  where  he 
had  dropped  it,  and,  in  following  it  to  its  logical  conclusions, 
made  it  the  basis  of  a  new  economic  philosophy. 

This  seems  to  have  been  done  independently  by  three  differ- 
ent men,  of  three  different  nationalities,  in  three  different 
languages:  Josiah  Warren,  an  American;  Pierre  J.  Proudhon,  a 
Frenchman;  Karl  Marx,  a  German  Jew.  That  Warren  and 
Proudhon  arrived  at  their  conclusions  singly  and  unaided  is 
certain;  but  whether  Marx  was  not  largely  indebted  to  Prou- 
dhon for  his  economic  ideas  is  questionable.  However  this  may 
be,  Marx's  presentation  of  the  ideas  was  in  so  many  respects 


6 


INSTEAD  OP  A  BOOK. 


peculiarly  his  own  that  he  is  fairly  entitled  to  the  credit  of 
originality.  That  the  work  of  this  interesting  trio  should  have 
been  done  so  nearly  simultaneously  would  seem  to  indicate 
that  Socialism  was  in  the  air,  and  that  the  time  was  ripe  and 
the  conditions  favorable  for  the  appearance  of  this  new  school 
of  thought.  So  far  as  priority  of  time  is  concerned,  the  credit 
seems  to  belong  to  Warren,  the  American, — a  fact  which 
should  be  noted  by  the  stump  orators  who  are  so  fond  of  de- 
claiming against  Socialism  as  an  imported  article.  Of  the 
purest  revolutionary  blood,  too,  this  Warren,  for  he  descends 
from  the  Warren  who  fell  at  Bunker  Hill. 

From  Smith's  principle  that  labor  is  the  true  measure  of 
price — or,  as  Warren  phrased  it,  that  cost  is  the  proper  limit  of 
price — these  three  men  made  the  following  deductions  :  that 
the  natural  wage  of  labor  is  its  product;  that  this  wage,  or 
product,  is  the  only  just  source  of  income  (leaving  out,  of 
course,  gift,  inheritance,  etc.);  that  all  who  derive  income  from 
any  other  source  abstract  it  directly  or  indirectly  from  the 
natural  and  just  wage  of  labor;  that  this  abstracting  process 
generally  takes  one  of  three  forms, — interest,  rent,  and  profit; 
that  these  three  constitute  the  trinity  of  usury,  and  are  simply 
different  methods  of  levying  tribute  for  the  use  of  capital;  that, 
capital  being  simply  stored-up  labor  which  has  already  received 
its  pay  in  full,  its  use  ought  to  be  gratuitous,  on  the  principle 
that  labor  is  the  only  basis  of  price;  that  the  lender  of  capital 
is  entitled  to  its  return  intact,  and  nothing  more;  that  the  only 
reason  why  the  banker,  the  stockholder,  the  landlord,  the  man- 
ufacturer, and  the  merchant  are  able  to  exact  usury  from 
labor  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  are  backed  by  legal  privilege,  or 
monopoly;  and  that  the  only  way  to  secure  to  labor  the  enjoy- 
ment of  its  entire  product,  or  natural  wage,  is  to  strike  down 
monopoly. 

It  must  not  be  inferred  that  either  Warren,  Proudhon,  or 
Marx  used  exactly  this  phraseology,  or  followed  exactly  this 
line  of  thought,  but  it  indicates  definitely  enough  the  funda- 
mental ground  taken  by  all  three,  and  their  substantial  thought 
up  to  the  limit  to  which  they  went  in  common.  And,  lest  I  may 
be  accused  of  stating  the  positions  and  arguments  of  these 
men  incorrectly,  it  may  be  well  to  say  in  advance  that  I  have 
viewed  them  broadly,  and  that,  for  the  purpose  of  sharp,  vivid, 
and  emphatic  comparison  and  contrast,  I  have  taken  consider- 
able liberty  with  their  thought  by  rearranging  it  in  an  order, 
and  often  in  a  phraseology,  of  my  own,  but,  I  am  satisfied, 
without,  in  so  doing,  misrepresenting  them  in  any  essential 
particular. 


STATE  SOCIALISM   AND  ANARCHISM. 


1 


It  was  at  this  point — the  necessity  of  striking  down  monop- 
oly— that  came  the  parting  of  their  ways.  Here  the  road 
forked.  They  found  that  they  must  turn  either  to  the  right 
or  to  the  left, — follow  either  the  path  of  Authority  or  the  path 
of  Liberty.  Marx  went  one  way;  Warren  and  Proudhon  the 
other.    Thus  were  born  State  Socialism  and  Anarchism. 

First,  then,  State  Socialism,  which  may  be  described  as  the 
doctrine  that  all  the  affairs  of  men  should  be  managed  by  the 
government,  regardless  of  individual  choice. 

Marx,  its  founder,  concluded  that  the  only  way  to  abolish 
the  class  monopolies  was  to  centralize  and  consolidate  all  in- 
dustrial and  commercial  interests,  all  productive  and  distribu- 
tive agencies,  in  one  vast  monopoly  in  the  hands  of  the  State. 
The  government  must  become  banker,  manufacturer,  farmer, 
carrier,  and  merchant,  and  in  these  capacities  must  suffer  no 
competition.  Land,  tools,  and  all  instruments  of  production 
must  be  wrested  from  individual  hands,  and  made  the  property 
of  the  collectivity.  To  the  individual  can  belong  only  the 
products  to  be  consumed,  not  the  means  of  producing  them. 
A  man  may  own  his  clothes  and  his  food,  but  not  the  sewing- 
machine  which  makes  his  shirts  or  the  spade  which  digs  his 
potatoes.  Product  and  capital  are  essentially  different  things; 
the  former  belongs  to  individuals,  the  latter  to  society.  Society 
must  seize  the  capital  which  belongs  to  it,  by  the  ballot  if  it 
can,  by  revolution  if  it  must.  Once  in  possession  of  it,  it  must 
administer  it  on  the  majority  principle,  through  its  organ,  the 
State,  utilize  it  in  production  and  distribution,  fix  all  prices  by 
the  amount  of  labor  involved,  and  employ  the  whole  people  in 
its  workshops,  farms,  stores,  etc.  The  nation  must  be  trans- 
formed into  a  vast  bureaucracy,  and  every  individual  into  a  State 
official.  Everything  must  be  done  on  the  cost  principle,  the 
people  having  no  motive  to  make  a  profit  out  of  themselves. 
Individuals  not  being  allowed  to  own  capital,  no  one  can  em- 
ploy another,  or  even  himself.  Every  man  will  be  a  wage-re- 
ceiver, and  the  State  the  only  wage-payer.  He  who  will  not 
work  for  the  State  must  starve,  or,  more  likely,  go  to  prison. 
All  freedom  of  trade  must  disappear.  Competition  must  be 
utterly  wiped  out.  All  industrial  and  commercial  activity  must 
be  centred  in  one  vast,  enormous,  all-inclusive  monopoly. 
The  remedy  for  monopolies  is  monopoly. 

Such  is  the  economic  programme  of  State  Socialism  as 
adopted  from  Karl  Marx.  The  history  of  its  growth  and 
progress  cannot  be  told  here.  In  this  country  the  parties  that 
uphold  it  are  known  as  the  Socialistic  Labor  Party,  which  pre- 
tends to  follow  Karl  Marx  ;  the  Nationalists,  who  follow  Karl 


8 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


Marx  filtered  through  Edward  Bellamy  ;  and  the  Christian 
Socialists,  who  follow  Karl  Marx  filtered  through  Jesus  Christ. 

What  other  applications  this  principle  of  Authority,  once 
adopted  in  the  economic  sphere,  will  develop  is  very  evident. 
It  means  the  absolute  control  by  the  majority  of  all  individual 
conduct.  The  right  of  such  control  is  already  admitted  by  the 
State  Socialists,  though  they  maintain  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  individual  would  be  allowed  a  much  larger  liberty  than  he 
now  enjoys.  But  he  would  only  be  allowed  it ;  he  could  not 
claim  it  as  his  own.  There  would  be  no  foundation  of  society 
upon  a  guaranteed  equality  of  the  largest  possible  liberty. 
Such  liberty  as  might  exist  would  exist  by  sufferance  and 
could  be  taken  away  at  any  moment.  Constitutional  guaran- 
tees would  be  of  no  avail.  There  would  be  but  one  article  in 
the  constitution  of  a  State  Socialistic  country  :  "  The  right  of 
the  majority  is  absolute." 

The  claim  of  the  State  Socialists,  however,  that  this  right 
would  not  be  exercised  in  matters  pertaining  to  the  individual 
in  the  more  intimate  and  private  relations  of  his  life  is  not 
borne  out  by  the  history  of  governments.  It  has  ever  been  the 
tendency  of  power  to  add  to  itself,  to  enlarge  its  sphere,  to  en- 
croach beyond  the  limits  set  for  it  ;  and  where  the  habit  of 
resisting  such  encroachment  is  not  fostered,  and  the  individual 
is  not  taught  to  be  jealous  of  his  rights,  individuality  gradually 
disappears  and  the  government  or  State  becomes  the  all-in-all. 
Control  naturally  accompanies  responsibility.  Under  the  sys- 
tem of  State  Socialism,  therefore,  which  holds  the  commu- 
nity responsible  for  the  health,  wealth,  and  wisdom  of  the 
individual,  it  is  evident  that  the  community,  through  its  major- 
ity expression,  will  insist  more  and  more  on  prescribing  the 
conditions  of  health,  wealth,  and  wisdom,  thus  impairing  and 
finally  destroying  individual  independence  and  with  it  all  sense 
of  individual  responsibility. 

Whatever,  then,  the  State  Socialists  may  claim  or  disclaim, 
their  system,  if  adopted,  is  doomed  to  end  in  a  State  religion, 
to  the  expense  of  which  all  must  contribute  and  at  the  altar  of 
which  all  must  kneel  ;  a  State  school  of  medicine,  by  whose 
practitioners  the  sick  must  invariably  be  treated  ;  a  State  system 
of  hygiene,  prescribing  what  all  must  and  must  not  eat,  drink, 
wear,  and  do  ;  a  State  code  of  morals,  which  will  not  content 
itself  with  punishing  crime,  but  will  prohibit  what  the  major- 
ity decide  to  be  vice  ;  a  State  system  of  instruction,  which  will 
do.  away  with  all  private  schools,  academies,  and  colleges  ;  a 
State  nursery,  in  which  all  children  must  be  brought  up  in 
common  at  the  public  expense;  and,  finally,  a  State  family, 


STATE  SOCIALISM  AND  ANARCHISM. 


9 


with  an  attempt  at  stirpiculture,  or  scientific  breeding,  in 
which  no  man  and  woman  will  be  allowed  to  have  children  if 
the  State  prohibits  them  and  no  man  and  woman  can  refuse 
to  have  children  if  the  State  orders  them.  Thus  will  Author- 
ity achieve  its  acme  and  Monopoly  be  carried  to  its  highest 
power. 

Such  is  the  ideal  of  the  logical  State  Socialist,  such  the 
goal  which  lies  at  the  end  of  the  road  that  Karl  Marx  took. 
Let  us  now  follow  the  fortunes  of  Warren  and  Proudhon,  who 
took  the  other  road, — the  road  of  Liberty. 

This  brings  us  to  Anarchism,  which  may  be  described  as 
the  doctrine  that  all  the  affairs  of  men  should  be  managed  by  indi- 
viduals or  voluntary  associations,  and  that  the  State  should  be 
abolished. 

When  Warren  and  Proudhon,  in  prosecuting  their  search  for 
justice  to  labor,  came  face  to  face  with  the  obstacle  of  class 
monopolies,  they  saw  that  these  monopolies  rested  upon  Au- 
thority, and  concluded  that  the  thing  to  be  done  was,  not 
to  strengthen  this  Authority  and  thus  make  monopoly  uni- 
versal, but  to  utterly  uproot  Authority  and  give  full  sway  to 
the  opposite  principle,  Liberty,  by  making  competition,  the 
antithesis  of  monopoly,  universal.  They  saw  in  competition 
the  great  leveller  of  prices  to  the  labor  cost  of  production. 
In  this  they  agreed  with  the  political  economists.  The  query 
then  naturally  presented  itself  why  all  prices  do  not  fall  to 
labor  cost  ;  where  there  is  any  room  for  incomes  acquired 
otherwise  than  by  labor;  in  a  word,  why  the  usurer,  the  re- 
ceiver of  interest,  rent,  and  profit,  exists.  The  answer  was 
found  in  the  present  one-sidedness  of  competition.  It  was 
discovered  that  capital  had  so  manipulated  legislation  that  un- 
limited competition  is  allowed  in  supplying  productive  labor, 
thus  keeping  wages  down  to  the  starvation  point,  or  as  near  it 
as  practicable;  that  a  great  deal  of  competition  is  allowed  in 
supplying  distributive  labor,  or  the  labor  of  the  mercantile 
classes,  thus  keeping,  not  the  prices  of  goods,  but  the  mer- 
chants' actual  profits  on  them,  down  to  a  point  somewhat 
approximating  equitable  wages  for  the  merchants'  work;  but 
that  almost  no  competition  at  all  is  allowed  in  supplying  capi- 
tal, upon  the  aid  of  which  both  productive  and  distributive 
labor  are  dependent  for  their  power  of  achievement,  thus 
keeping  the  rate  of  interest  on  money  and  of  house-rent  and 
ground-rent  at  as  high  a  point  as  the  necessities  of  the  people 
will  bear. 

On  discovering  this,  Warren  and  Proudhon  charged  the 
political  economists  with  being  afraid  of  their  own  doctrine. 


lo 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


The  Manchester  men  were  accused  of  being  inconsistent. 
They  believed  in  liberty  to  compete  with  the  laborer  in  order 
to  reduce  his  wages,  but  not  in  liberty  to  compete  with  the 
capitalist  in  order  to  reduce  his  usury.  Laissez  /aire  was  very 
good  sauce  for  the  goose,  labor,  but  very  poor  sauce  for  the 
gander,  capital.  But  how  to  correct  this  inconsistency,  how 
to  serve  this  gander  with  this  sauce,  how  to  put  capital  at  the 
service  of  business  men  and  laborers  at  cost,  or  free  of  usury, 
—that  was  the  problem. 

Marx,  as  we  have  seen,  solved  it  by  declaring  capital  to  be 
a  different  thing  from  product,  and  maintaining  that  it  belonged 
to  society  and  should  be  seized  by  society  and  employed  for 
the  benefit  of  all  alike.  Proudhon  scoffed  at  this  distinction 
between  capital  and  product.  He  maintained  that  capital  and 
product  are  not  different  kinds  of  wealth,  but  simply  alternate 
conditions  or  functions  of  the  same  wealth;  that  all  wealth 
undergoes  an  incessant  transformation  from  capital  into  prod- 
uct and  from  product  back  into  capital,  the  process  repeating 
itself  interminably;  that  capital  and  product  are  purely  social 
terms;  that  what  is  product  to  one  man  immediately  becomes 
capital  to  another,  and  vice  versa;  that,  if  there  were  but  one 
person  in  the  world,  all  wealth  would  be  to  him  at  once  cap- 
ital and  product;  that  the  fruit  of  A's  toil  is  his  product,  which, 
when  sold  to  B,  becomes  B's  capital  (unless  B  is  an  unpro- 
ductive consumer,  in  which  case  it  is  merely  wasted  wealth, 
outside  the  view  of  social  economy);  that  a  steam-engine  is 
just  as  much  product  as  a  coat,  and  that  a  coat  is  just  as  much 
capital  as  a  steam-engine;  and  that  the  same  laws  of  equity 
govern  the  possession  of  the  one  that  govern  the  possession  of 
the  other. 

For  these  and  other  reasons  Proudhon  and  Warren  found 
themselves  unable  to  sanction  any  such  plan  as  the  seizure  of 
capital  by  society.  But,  though  opposed  to  socializing  the 
ownership  of  capital,  they  aimed  nevertheless  to  socialize  its 
effects  by  making  its  use  beneficial  to  all  instead  of  a  means 
of  impoverishing  the  many  to  enrich  the  few.  And  when  the 
light  burst  in  upon  them,  they  saw  that  this  could  be  done  by 
subjecting  capital  to  the  natural  law  of  competition,  thus  bring- 
ing the  price  of  its  use  down  to  cost, — that  is,  to  nothing  be- 
yond the  expenses  incidental  to  handling  and  transferring 
it.  So  they  raised  the  banner  of  Absolute  Free  Trade;  free 
trade  at  home,  as  well  as  with  foreign  countries;  the  logical 
carrying  out  of  the  Manchester  doctrine;  laissez  /aire  the 
universal  rule.  Under  this  banner  they  began  their  fight 
upon  monopolies,  whether  the  all-inclusive  monopoly  of  the 


STATE   SOCIALISM   AND   ANARCHISM.  II 

State  Socialists,  or  the  various  class  monopolies  that  now 
prevail. 

Of  the  latter  they  distinguished  four  of  principal  impor- 
tance :  the  money  monopoly,  the  land  monopoly,  the  tariff  mo- 
nopoly, and  the  patent  monopoly. 

First  in  the  importance  of  its  evil  influence  they  considered 
the  money  monopoly,  which  consists  of  the  privilege  given  by 
the  government  to  certain  individuals,  or  to  individuals  hold- 
ing certain  kinds  of  property,  of  issuing  the  circulating  medi- 
um, a  privilege  which  is  now  enforced  in  this  country  by  a 
national  tax  of  ten  per  cent,  upon  all  other  persons  who  attempt 
to  furnish  a  circulating  medium,  and  by  State  laws  making  it 
a  criminal  offence  to  issue  notes  as  currency.  It  is  claimed 
that  the  holders  of  this  privilege  control  the  rate  of  interest, 
the  rate  of  rent  of  houses  and  buildings,  and  the  prices  of 
goods, — the  first  directly,  and  the  second  and  third  indirectly. 
For,  say  Proudhon  and  Warren,  if  the  business  of  banking 
were  made  free  to  all,  more  and  more  persons  would  enter  into 
it  until  the  competition  should  become  sharp  enough  to  reduce 
the  price  of  lending  money  to  the  labor  cost,  which  statistics 
show  to  be  less  than  three-fourths  of  one  per  cent.  In  that 
case  the  thousands  of  people  who  are  now  deterred  from  going 
into  business  by  the  ruinously  high  rates  which  they  must  pay 
for  capital  with  which  to  start  and  carry  on  business  will  find 
their  difficulties  removed.  If  they  have  property  which  they 
do  not  desire  to  convert  into  money  by  sale,  a  bank  will  take 
it  as  collateral  for  a  loan  of  a  certain  proportion  of  its  market 
value  at  less  than  one  per  cent,  discount.  If  they  have  no 
property,  but  are  industrious,  honest,  and  capable,  they  will 
generally  be  able  to  get  their  individual  notes  endorsed  by  a 
sufficient  number  of  known  and  solvent  parties;  and  on  such 
business  paper  they  will  be  able  to  get  a  loan  at  a  bank  on 
similarly  favorable  terms.  Thus  interest  will  fall  at  a  blow. 
The  banks  will  really  not  be  lending  capital  at  all,  but  will  be 
doing  business  on  the  capital  of  their  customers,  the  business 
consisting  in  an  exchange  of  the  known  and  widely  available 
credits  of  the  banks  for  the  unknown  and  unavailable,  but 
equally  good,  credits  of  the  customers,  and  a  charge  therefor 
of  less  than  one  per  cent.,  not  as  interest  for  the  use  of  capi- 
tal, but  as  pay  for  the  labor  of  running  the  banks.  This 
facility  of  acquiring  capital  will  give  an  unheard-of  impetus 
to  business,  and  consequently  create  an  unprecedented  demand 
for  labor, — a  demand  which  will  always  be  in  excess  of  the 
supply,  directly  the  contrary  of  the  present  condition  of  the 
labor  market.    Then  will  be  seen  an  exemplification  of  the  ' 


T  2 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


words  of  Richard  Cobden  that,  when  two  laborers  are  after 
one  employer,  wages  fall,  but  when  two  employers  are  after  one 
laborer,  wages  rise.  Labor  will  then  be  in  a  position  to  dic- 
tate its  wages,  and  will  thus  secure  its  natural  wage,  its  entire 
product.  Thus  the  same  blow  that  strikes  interest  down  will 
send  wages  up.  But  this  is  not  all.  Down  will  go  profits  also. 
For  merchants,  instead  of  buying  at  high  prices  on  credit, 
•  will  borrow  money  of  the  banks  at  less  than  one  per  cent., 
buy  at  low  prices  for  cash,  and  correspondingly  reduce  the 
prices  of  their  goods  to  their  customers.  And  with  the  rest 
will  go  house-rent.  For  no  one  who  can  borrow  capital  at  one 
per  cent,  with  which  to  build  a  house  of  his  own  will  consent 
to  pay  rent  to  a  landlord  at  a  higher  rate  than  that.  Such  is 
the  vast  claim  made  by  Proudhon  and  Warren  as  to  the  results 
of  the  simple  abolition  of  the  money  monopoly. 

Second  in  importance  comes  the  land  monopoly,  the  evil 
effects  of  which  are  seen  principally  in  exclusively  agricultural 
countries,  like  Ireland.  This  monopoly  consists  in  the  enforce- 
ment by  government  of  land  titles  which  do  not  rest  upon 
personal  occupancy  and  cultivation.  It  was  obvious  to  Warren 
and  Proudhon  that,  as  soon  as  individuals  should  no  longer  be 
protected  by  their  fellows  in  anything  but  personal  occupancy 
and  cultivation  of  land,  ground-rent  would  disappear,  and  so 
usury  have  one  less  leg  to  stand  on.  Their  followers  of  to-day 
are  disposed  to  modify  this  claim  to  the  extent  of  admitting 
that  the  very  small  fraction  of  ground-rent  which  rests,  not  on 
monopoly,  but  on  superiority  of  soil  or  site,  will  continue  to 
exist  for  a  time  and  perhaps  forever,  though  tending  constantly 
:o  a  minimum  under  conditions  of  freedom.  But  the  inequal- 
ity of  soils  which  gives  rise  to  the  economic  rent  of  land,  like 
the  inequality  of  human  skill  which  gives  rise  to  the  economic 
rent  of  ability,  is  not  a  cause  for  serious  alarm  even  to  the 
most  thorough  opponent  of  usury,  as  its  nature  is  not  that  of 
a  germ  from  which  other  and  graver  inequalities  may  spring, 
but  rather  that  of  a  decaying  branch  which  may  finally  wither 
and  fall. 

Third,  the  tariff  monopoly,  which  consists  in  fostering  pro- 
duction at  high  prices  and  under  unfavorable  conditions  by 
visiting  with  the  penalty  of  taxation  those  who  patronize  pro- 
duction at  low  prices  and  under  favorable  conditions.  The 
evil  to  which  this  monopoly  gives  rise  might  more  properly  be 
called  wmisury  than  usury,  because  it  compels  labor  to  pay, 
not  exactly  for  the  use  of  capital,  but  rather  for  the  misuse  of 
capital.  The  abolition  of  this  monopoly  would  result  in  a 
x  great  reduction  in  the  prices  of  all  articles  taxed,  and  this 


STATE  SOCIALISM   AND  ANARCHISM. 


13 


saving  to  the  laborers  who  consume  these  articles  would  be 
another  step  toward  securing  to  the  laborer  his  natural  wage, 
his  entire  product.  Proudhon  admitted,  however,  that  to 
abolish  this  monopoly  before  abolishing  the  money  monopoly 
would  be  a  cruel  and  disastrous  policy,  first,  because  the  evil 
of  scarcity  of  money,  created  by  the  money  monopoly,  would 
be  intensified  by  the  flow  of  money  out  of  the  country  which 
would  be  involved  in  an  excess  of  imports  over  exports,  and, 
second,  because  that  fraction  of  the  laborers  of  the  country 
which  is  now  employed  in  the  protected  industries  would  be 
turned  adrift  to  face  starvation  without  the  benefit  of  the  in- 
satiable demand  for  labor  which  a  competitive  money  system 
would  create.  Free  trade  in  money  at  home,  making  money 
and  work  abundant,  was  insisted  upon  by  Proudhon  as  a  prior 
condition  of  free  trade  in  goods  with  foreign  countries. 

Fourth,  the  patent  monopoly,  which  consists  in  protecting 
inventors  and  authors  against  competition  for  a  period  long 
enough  to  enable  them  to  extort  from  the  people  a  reward 
enormously  in  excess  of  the  labor  measure  of  their  services, — 
in  other  words,  in  giving  certain  people  a  right  of  property  for 
a  term  of  years  in  laws  and  facts  of  Nature,  and  the  power  to 
exact  tribute  from  others  for  the  use  of  this  natural  wealth, 
which  should  be  open  to  all.  The  abolition  of  this  monopoly 
would  fill  its  beneficiaries  with  a  wholesome  fear  of  com- 
petition which  would  cause  them  to  be  satisfied  with  pay  for 
their  services  equal  to  that  which  other  laborers  get  for  theirs, 
and  to  secure  it  by  placing  their  products  and  works  on  the 
market  at  the  outset  at  prices  so  low  that  their  lines  of  busi- 
ness would  be  no  more  tempting  to  competitors  than  any 
other  lines. 

The  development  of  the  economic  programme  which  con- 
sists in  the  destruction  of  these  monopolies  and  the  substitu- 
tion for  them  of  the  freest  competition  led  its  authors  to  a 
perception  of  the  fact  that  all  their  thought  rested  upon  a 
very  fundamental  principle,  the  freedom  of  the  individual,  his 
right  of  sovereignty  over  himself,  his  products,  and  his  affairs, 
and  of  rebellion  against  the  dictation  of  external  authority. 
Just  as  the  idea  of  taking  capital  away  from  individuals  and 
giving  it  to  the  government  started  Marx  in  a  path  which 
ends  in  making  the  government  everything  and  the  individual, 
nothing,  so  the  idea  of  taking  capital  away  from  government- 
protected  monopolies  and  putting  it  within  easy  reach  of  all 
individuals  started  Warren  and  Proudhon  in  a  path  which  ends 
in  making  the  individual  everything  and  the  government  noth- 
ing.   If  the  individual  has  a  right  to  govern  himself,  all  ex- 


14 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


ternal  government  is  tyranny.  Hence  the  necessity  of 
abolishing  the  State.  This  was  the  logical  conclusion  to 
which  Warren  and  Proudhon  were  forced,  and  it  became  the 
fundamental  article  of  their  political  philosophy.  It  is  the 
doctrine  which  Proudhon  named  An-archism,  a  word  derived 
from  the  Greek,  and  meaning,  not  necessarily  absence  of 
order,  as  is  generally  supposed,  but  absence  of  rule.  The 
Anarchists  are  simply  unterrified  Jeffersonian  Democrats. 
They  believe  that  "  the  best  government  is  that  which  governs 
least,"  and  that  that  which  governs  least  is  no  government  at 
all.  Even  the  simple  police  function  of  protecting  person  and 
property  they  deny  to  governments  supported  by  compulsory 
taxation.  Protection  they  look  upon  as  a  thing  to  be  secured, 
as  long  as  it  is  necessary,  by  voluntary  association  and  coop- 
eration for  self-defence,  or  as  a  commodity  to  be  purchased, 
like  any  other  commodity,  of  those  who  offer  the  best  article 
at  the  lowest  price.  In  their  view  it  is  in  itself  an  invasion 
of  the  individual  to  compel  him  to  pay  for  or  suffer  a  pro- 
tection against  invasion  that  he  has  not  asked  for  and  does 
not  desire.  And  they  further  claim  that  protection  will  be- 
come a  drug  in  the  market,  after  poverty  and  consequently 
crime  have  disappeared  through  the  realization  of  their 
economic  programme.  Compulsory  taxation  is  to  them  the 
life-principle  of  all  the  monopolies,  and  passive,  but  organized, 
resistance  to  the  tax-collector  they  contemplate,  when  the 
proper  time  comes,  as  one  of  the  most  effective  methods  of 
accomplishing  their  purposes. 

Their  attitude  on  this  is  a  key  to  their  attitude  on  all  other 
questions  of  a  political  or  social  nature.  In  religion  they  are 
atheistic  as  far  as  their  own  opinions  are  concerned,  for  they 
look  upon  divine  authority  and  the  religious  sanction  of 
morality  as  the  chief  pretexts  put  forward  by  the  privileged 
classes  for  the  exercise  of  human  authority.  "  If  God  ex- 
ists," said  Proudhon,  "  he  is  man's  enemy."  And,  in  contrast 
to  Voltaire's  famous  epigram,  "  If  God  did  not  exist,  it  would 
be  necessary  to  invent  him,"  the  great  Russian  Nihilist, 
Michael  Bakounine,  placed  this  antithetical  proposition:  "If 
God  existed,  it  would  be  necessary  to  abolish  him."  But 
although,  viewing  the  divine  hierarchy  as  a  contradiction  of 
Anarchy,  they  do  not  believe  in  it,  the  Anarchists  none  the 
less  firmly  believe  in  the  liberty  to  believe  in  it.  Any  denial 
of  religious  freedom  they  squarely  oppose. 

Upholding  thus  the  right  of  every  individual  to  be  or  select 
his  own  priest,  they  likewise  uphold  his  right  to  be  or  select 
his  own  doctor.    No  monopoly  in  theology,  no  monopoly  in 


STATE  SOCIALISM   AND   ANARCHISM.  15 

medicine.  Competition  everywhere  and  always  ;  spiritual 
advice  and  medical  advice  alike  to  stand  or  fall  on  their  own 
merits.  And  not  only  in  medicine,  but  in  hygiene,  must  this 
principle  of  liberty  be  followed.  The  individual  may  decide 
for  himself  not  only  what  to  do  to  get  well,  but  what  to  do  to 
keep  well.  No  external  power  must  dictate  to  him  what  he 
must  and  must  not  eat,  drink,  wear,  or  do. 

Nor  does  the  Anarchistic  scheme  furnish  any  code  of  morals 
to  be  imposed  upon  the  individual.  "  Mind  your  own  busi- 
ness "  is  its  only  moral  law.  Interference  with  another's  busi- 
ness is  a  crime  and  the  only  crime,  and  as  such  may  properly 
be  resisted.  In  accordance  with  this  view  the  Anarchists  look 
upon  attempts  to  arbitrarily  suppress  vice  as  in  themselves 
crimes.  They  believe  liberty  and  the  resultant  social  well- 
being  to  be  a  sure  cure  for  all  the  vices.  But  they  recognize 
the  right  of  the  drunkard,  the  gambler,  the  rake,  and  the 
harlot  to  live  their  lives  until  they  shall  freely  choose  to  aban- 
don them. 

In  the  matter  of  the  maintenance  and  rearing  of  children 
the  Anarchists  would  neither  institute  the  communistic  nursery 
which  the  State  Socialists  favor  nor  keep  the  communistic 
school  system  which  now  prevails.  The  nurse  and  the  teacher, 
like  the  doctor  and  the  preacher,  must  be  selected  voluntarily, 
and  their  services  must  be  paid  for  by  those  who  patronize 
them.  Parental  rights  must  not  be  taken  away,  and  parental 
responsibilities  must  not  be  foisted  upon  others. 

Even  in  so  delicate  a  matter  as  that  of  the  relations  of  the 
sexes  the  Anarchists  do  not  shrink  from  the  application  of 
their  principle.  They  acknowledge  and  defend  the  right  of 
any  man  and  woman,  or  any  men  and  women,  to  love  each 
other  for  as  long  or  as  short  a  time  as  they  can,  will,  or  may. 
To  them  legal  marriage  and  legal  divorce  are  equal  absurdities. 
They  look  forward  to  a  time  when  every  individual,  whether 
man  or  woman,  shall  be  self-supporting,  and  when  each  shall 
have  an  independent  home  of  his  or  her  own,  whether  it  be  a 
separate  house  or  rooms  in  a  house  with  others;  when  the  love 
relations  between  these  independent  individuals  shall  be  as 
varied  as  are  individual  inclinations  and  attractions;  and  when 
the  children  born  of  these  relations  shall  belong  exclusively  to 
the  mothers  until  old  enough  to  belong  to  themselves. 

Such  are  the  main  features  of  the  Anarchistic  social  ideal. 
There  is  wide  difference  of  opinion  among  those  who  hold  it 
as  to  the  best  method  of  obtaining  it.  Time  forbids  the 
treatment  of  that  phase  of  the  subject  here.  I  will  simply 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  an  ideal  utterly  inconsistent 


i6 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


with  that  of  those  Communists  who  falsely  call  themselves 
Anarchists  while  at  the  same  time  advocating  a  regime  of  An- 
archism fully  as  despotic  as  that  of  the  State  Socialists  them- 
selves. And  it  is  an  ideal  that  can  be  as  little  advanced  by 
the  forcible  expropriation  recommended  by  John  Most  and 
Prince  Kropotkine  as  retarded  by  the  brooms  of  those  Mrs. 
Partingtons  of  the  bench  who  sentence  them  to  prison;  an 
ideal  which  the  martyrs  of  Chicago  did  far  more  to  help  by 
their  glorious  death  upon  the  gallows  for  the  common  cause 
of  Socialism  than  by  their  unfortunate  advocacy  during  their 
lives,  in  the  name  of  Anarchism,  of  force  as  a  revolutionary 
agent  and  authority  as  a  safeguard  of  the  new  social  order. 
The  Anarchists  believe  in  liberty  both  as  end  and  means,  and 
are  hostile  to  anything  that  antagonizes  it. 

I  should  not  undertake  to  summarize  this  altogether  too 
summary  exposition  of  Socialism  from  the  standpoint  of  Anar- 
chism, did  I  not  find  the  task  already  accomplished  for  me  by 
a  brilliant  French  journalist  and  historian,  Ernest  Lesigne,  in 
the  form  of  a  series  of  crisp  antitheses;  by  reading  which  to 
you  as  a  conclusion  of  this  lecture  I  hope  to  deepen  the  im- 
pression which  it  has  been  my  endeavor  to  make. 

"  There  are  two  Socialisms. 

"  One  is  communistic,  the  other  solidaritarian. 

"  One  is  dictatorial,  the  other  libertarian. 

"  One  is  metaphysical,  the  other  positive. 

"  One  is  dogmatic,  the  other  scientific. 

"  One  is  emotional,  the  other  reflective. 

"  One  is  destructive,  the  other  constructive. 

"  Both  are  in  pursuit  of  the  greatest  possible  welfare  for 
all. 

"  One  aims  to  establish  happiness  for  all,  the  other  to  enable 
each  to  be  happy  in  his  own  way. 

"  The  first  regards  the  State  as  a  society  sui  generis,  of  an 
especial  essence,  the  product  of  a  sort  of  divine  right  outside 
of  and  above  all  society,  with  special  rights  and  able  to  exact 
special  obediences;  the  second  considers  the  State  as  an  asso- 
ciation like  any  other,  generally  managed  worse  than  others. 

"  The  first  proclaims  the  sovereignty  of  the  State,  the  second 
recognizes  no  sort  of  sovereign. 

"One  wishes  all  monopolies  to  be  held  by  the  State;  the 
other  wishes  the  abolition  of  all  monopolies. 

"  One  wishes  the  governed  class  to  become  the  governing 
class  ;  the  other  wishes  the  disappearance  of  classes. 

"  Both  declare  that  the  existing  state  of  things  cannot  last. 

"  The  first  considers  revolution  as  the  indispensable  agent  of 


STATE  SOCIALISM   AND  ANARCHISM. 


'7 


evolution  ;  the  second  teaches  that  repression  alone  turns  evo- 
lution into  revolution. 

"  The  first  has  faith  in  a  cataclysm. 

"  The  second  knows  that  social  progress  will  result  from  the 
free  play  of  individual  efforts. 

"  Both  understand  that  we  are  entering  upon  a  new  historic 
phase. 

"  One  wishes  that  there  should  be  none  but  proletaires. 

u  The  other  wishes  that  there  should  be  no  more  proletaires. 

"  The  first  wishes  to  take  everything  from  everybody. 

"  The  second  wishes  to  leave  each  in  possession  of  his  own. 

"  The  one  wishes  to  expropriate  everybody. 

"  The  other  wishes  everybody  to  be  a  proprietor. 

"  The  first  says  :  '  Do  as  the  government  wishes.' 

"  The  second  says  :  '  Do  as  you  wish  yourself.' 

"  The  former  threatens  with  despotism. 

"  The  latter  promises  liberty. 

"  The  former  makes  the  citizen  the  subject  of  the  State. 

"  The  latter  makes  the  State  the  employee  of  the  citizen. 

"  One  proclaims  that  labor  pains  will  be  necessary  to  the 
birth  of  the  new  world. 

"  The  other  declares  that  real  progress  will  not  cause  suffer- 
ing to  any  one. 

"  The  first  has  confidence  in  social  war. 

"  The  other  believes  only  in  the  works  of  peace. 

"  One  aspires  to  command,  to  regulate,  to  legislate. 

"  The  other  wishes  to  attain  the  minimum  of  command,  of 
regulation,  of  legislation. 

"  One  would  be  followed  by  the  most  atrocious  of  reactions. 

"  The  other  opens  unlimited  horizons  to  progress. 

"  The  first  will  fail;  the  other  will  succeed. 

"  Both  desire  equality. 

"  One  by  lowering  heads  that  are  too  high. 

"  The  other  by  raising  heads  that  are  too  low. 

"One  sees  equality  under  a  common  yoke. 

"  The  other  will  secure  equality  in  complete  liberty. 

"  One  is  intolerant,  the  other  tolerant. 

"  One  frightens,  the  other  reassures. 

"  The  first  wishes  to  instruct  everybody. 

"  The  second  wishes  to  enable  everybody  to  instruct  himself. 

"  The  first  wishes  to  support  everybody. 

"  The  second  wishes  to  enable  everybody  to  support  himself. 

"  One  says  : 

"  The  land  to  the  State. 
"  The  mine  to  the  State. 


1 8 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


"  The  tool  to  the  State. 

"  The  product  to  the  State, 

"  The  other  says: 

"  The  land  to  the  cultivator. 

"  The  mine  to  the  miner. 

"  The  tool  to  the  laborer. 

"  The  product  to  the  producer. 

"  There  are  only  these  two  Socialisms. 

"  One  is  the  infancy  of  Socialism;  the  other  is  its  manhood. 
"  One  is  already  the  past;  the  other  is  the  future. 
"  One  will  give  place  to  the  other. 

"  To-day  each  of  us  must  choose  for  one  or  the  other  of 
these  two  Socialisms,  or  else  confess  that  he  is  not  a  So- 
cialist." 


V 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND 
THE  STATE. 


RELATION  OF  THE  STATE  TO  THE  INDIVIDUAL.* 


{Liberty,  November  15,  1890.] 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen: — Presumably  the  honor  which  you 
have  done  me  in  inviting  me  to  address  you  to-day  upon  "  The 
Relation  of  the  State  to  the  Individual"  is  due  principally  to  the 
fact  that  circumstances  have  combined  to  make  me  somewhat 
conspicuous  as  an  exponent  of  the  theory  of  Modern  Anarchism, 
— a  theory  which  is  coming  to  be  more  and  more  regarded  as 
one  of  the  few  that  are  tenable  as  a  basis  of  political  and  social 
life.  In  its  name,  then,  I  shall  speak  to  you  in  discussing  this 
question,  which  either  underlies  or  closely  touches  almost  every 
practical  problem  that  confronts  this  generation.  The  future 
of  the  tariff,  of  taxation,-  of  finance,  of  property,  of  woman,  of 
marriage,  of  the  family,  of  the  suffrage,  of  education,  of  inven- 
tion, of  literature,  of  science,  of  the  arts,  of  personal  habits,  of 
private  character,  of  ethics,  of  religion,  will  be  determined  by 
the  conclusion  at  which  mankind  shall  arrive  as  to  whether 
and  how  far  the  individual  owes  allegiance  to  the  State. 

Anarchism,  in  dealing  with  this  subject,  has  found  it  neces- 
sary, first  of  all,  to  define  its  terms.  Popular  conceptions  of 
the  terminology  of  politics  are  incompatible  with  the  rigor- 
ous exactness  required  in  scientific  investigation.  To  be 
sure,  a  departure  from  the  popular  use  of  language  is  accom- 
panied by  the  risk  of  misconception  by  the  multitude,  who  per- 
sistently ignore  the  new  definitions;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
conformity  thereto  is  attended  by  the  still  more  deplorable  al- 
ternative of  confusion  in  the  eyes  of  the  competent,  who  would 
be  justified  in  attributing  inexactness  of  thought  where  there  is 
inexactness  of  expression.  Take  the  term  "State,"  for  instance, 
with  which  we  are  especially  concerned  to-day.    It  is  a  word 


*  An  address  delivered  before  the  Unitarian  Ministers'  Institute,  at  the 
annual  session  held  in  Salem,  Mass.,  October  14,  1890,  at  which  ad- 
dresses on  the  same  subject  were  also  delivered  by  Rev.  W.  D.  P.  Bliss, 
from  the  standpoint  of  Christian  Socialism,  and  President  E.  Benjamin 
Andrews,  of  Brown  University,  from  the  standpoint  of  State  regulation. 

21 


22 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


that  is  on  every  lip.  But  how  many  of  those  who  use  it  have 
any  idea  of  what  they  mean  by  it?  And,  of  the  few  who  have, 
how  various  are  their  conceptions!  We  designate  by  the  term 
"  State  "  institutions  that  embody  absolutism  in  its  extreme 
form  and  institutions  that  temper  it  with  more  or  less  liberality. 
We  apply  the  word  alike  to  institutions  that  do  nothing  but 
aggress  and  to  institutions  that,  besides  aggressing,  to  some  ex- 
tent protect  and  defend.  But  which  is  the  State's  essential 
function,  aggression  or  defence,  few  seem  to  know  or  care. 
Some  champions  of  the  State  evidently  consider  aggression  its 
principle,  although  they  disguise  it  alike  from  themselves  and 
from  the  people  under  the  term  "  administration/'  which  they 
wish  to  extend  in  every  possible  direction.  Others,  on  the  con- 
trary, consider  defence  its  principle,  and  wish  to  limit  it  ac- 
cordingly to  the  performance  of  police  duties.  Still  others 
seem  to  think  that  it  exists  for  both  aggression  and  defence, 
combined  in  varying  proportions  according  to  the  momentary 
interests,  or  maybe  only  whims,  of  those  happening  to  control 
it.  Brought  face  to  face  with  these  diverse  views,  the  Anar- 
chists, whose  mission  in  the  world  is  the  abolition  of  aggression 
and  all  the  evils  that  result  therefrony  perceived  that,  to  be 
understood,  they  must  attach  some  definite  and  avowed  sig- 
nificance to  the  terms  which  they  are  obliged  to  employ,  and  es- 
pecially to  the  words  "  State  "  and  "  government."  Seeking, 
then,  the  elements  common  to  all  the  institutions  to  which  the 
name  "  State  "  has  been  applied,  they  have  found  them  two  in 
number:  first,  aggression;  second,  the  assumption  of  sole  au- 
thority over  a  given  area  and  all  within  it,  exercised  generally 
for  the  double  purpose  of  more  complete  oppression  of  its  sub- 
jects and  extension  of  its  boundaries.  That  this  second  ele- 
ment is  common  to  all  States,  I  think,  will  not  be  denied, — at 
least,  I  am  not  aware  that  any  State  has  ever  tolerated  a  rival 
State  within  its  borders;  and  it  seems  plain  that  any  State 
which  should  do  so  would  thereby  cease  to  be  a  State  and  to  be 
considered  as  such  by  any.  The  exercise  of  authority  over 
the  same  area  by  two  States  is  a  contradiction.  That  the  first 
element,  aggression,  has  been  and  is  common  to  all  States  will 
probably  be  less  generally  admitted.  Nevertheless,  I  shall  not 
attempt  to  re-enforce  here  the  conclusion  of  Spencer,  which  is 
gaining  wider  acceptance  daily, — that  the  State  had  its  origin 
in  aggression,  and  has  continued  as  an  aggressive  institution 
from  its  birth.  Defence  was  an  afterthought,  prompted  by  ne- 
cessity; and  its  introduction  as  a  State  function,  though  effected 
doubtless  with  a  view  to  the  strengthening  of  the  State,  was 
really  and  in  principle  the  initiation  of  the  State's  destruction. 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,  AND  THE  STATE. 


Its  growth  m  importance  is  but  an  evidence  of  the  tendency  of 
progress  toward  the  abolition  of  the  State.    Taking  this  view 
of  the  matter,  the  Anarchists  contend  that  defence  is  not  an 
essential  of  the  State,  but  that  aggression  is.    Now  what  is  ag- 
gression?   Aggression  is  simply  another  name  for  government. 
Aggression,  invasion,  government,  are  interconvertible  terms. 
The  essence  of  government  is  control,  or  the  attempt  to  con- 
trol.   He  who  attempts  to  control  another  is  a  governor,  an 
aggressor,  an  invader;  and  the  nature  of  such  invasion  is  not 
changed,  whether  it  is  made  by  one  man  upon  another  man,  after 
the  manner  of  the  ordinary  criminal,  or  by  one  man  upon  all 
other  men,  after  the  manner  of  an  absolute  monarch,  or  by  all 
other  men  upon  one  man,  after  the  manner  of  a  modern  de- 
mocracy.   On  the  other  hand,  he  who  resists  another's  at- 
tempt to  control  is  not  an  aggressor,  an  invader,  a  governor, 
but  simply  a  defender,  a  protector;  and  the  nature  of  such  re- 
sistance is  not  changed  whether  it  be  offered  by  one  man  to  an- 
other man,  as  when  one  repels  a  criminal's  onslaught,  or  by  one 
man  to  all  other  men,  as  when  one  declines  to  obey  an  oppres- 
sive law,  or  by  all  other  men  to  one  man,  as  when  a  subject 
people  rises  against  a  despot,  or  as  when  the  members  of  a 
community  voluntarily  unite  to  restrain  a  criminal.    This  dis- 
tinction between  invasion  and  resistance,  between  government 
and  defence,  is  vital.    Without  it  there  can  be  no  valid  philos- 
ophy of  politics.    Upon  this  distinction  and  the  other  consid- 
erations just  outlined,  the  Anarchists  frame  the  desired  defini- 
tions.   This,  then,  is  the  Anarchistic  definition  of  government : 
the  subjection  of  the  non-invasive  individual  to  an  external 
will.    And  this  is  the  Anarchistic  definition  of  the  State:  the 
embodiment  of  the  principle  of  invasion  in  an  individual,  or  a 
band  of  individuals,  assuming  to  act  as  representatives  or 
masters  of  the  entire  people  within  a  given  area.    As  to  the 
meaning  of  the  remaining  term  in  the  subject  under  discus- 
sion, the  word  "  individual,"  I  think  there  is  little  difficulty. 
Putting  aside  the  subtleties  in  which  certain  metaphysicians 
have  indulged,  one  may  use  this  word  without  danger  of  being 
misunderstood.    Whether  the  definitions  thus  arrived  at  prove 
generally  acceptable  or  not  is  a  matter  of  minor  consequence. 
I  submit  that  they  are  reached  scientifically,  and  serve  the 
purpose  of  a  clear  conveyance  of  thought.    The  Anarchists, 
having  by  their  adoption  taken  due  care  to  be  explicit,  are  en- 
titled to  have  their  ideas  judged  in  the  light  of  these  defini- 
tions. 

Now  comes  the  question  proper  :  What  relations  should 
exist  between  the  State  and  the  individual?     The  general 


24 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


method  of  determining  these  is  to  apply  some  theory  of  ethics 
involving  a  basis  of  moral  obligation.  In  this  method  the 
Anarchists  have  no  confidence.  The  idea  of  moral  obliga- 
tion, of  inherent  rights  and  duties,  they  totally  discard. 
They  look  upon  all  obligations,  not  as  moral,  but  as  social, 
and  even  then  not  really  as  obligations  except  as  these  have 
been  consciously  and  voluntarily  assumed.  If  a  man  makes 
an  agreement  with  men,  the  latter  may  combine  to  hold  him 
to  his  agreement  ;  but,  in  the  absence  of  such  agreement,  no 
man,  so  far  as  the  Anarchists  are  aware,  has  made  any  agree- 
ment with  God  or  with  any  other  power  of  any  order  what- 
soever. The  Anarchists  are  not  only  utilitarians,  but  egoists 
in  the  farthest  and  fullest  sense.  So  far  as  inherent  right  is 
concerned,  might  is  its  only  measure.  Any  man,  be  his  name 
Bill  Sykes  or  Alexander  Romanoff,  and  any  set  of  men, 
whether  the  Chinese  highbinders  or  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  have  the  right,  if  they  have  the  power,  to  kill 
or  coerce  other  men  and  to  make  the  entire  world  subservient 
to  their  ends.  Society's  right  to  enslave  the  individual  and 
the  individual's  right  to  enslave  society  are  unequal  only  be- 
cause their  powers  are  unequal.  This  position  being  sub- 
versive of  all  systems  of  religion  and  morality,  of  course  I 
cannot  expect  to  win  immediate  assent  thereto  from  the  audi- 
ence which  I  am  addressing  to-day;  nor  does  the  time  at  my 
disposal  allow  me  to  sustain  it  by  an  elaborate,  or  even  a  sum- 
mary, examination  of  the  foundations  of  ethics.  Those  who 
desire  a  greater  familiarity  with  this  particular  phase  of  the 
subject  should  read  a  profound  German  work,  "  DerEinzige 
unci  sein  Eigenthum"  written  years  ago  by  a  comparatively  un- 
known author,  Dr.  Caspar  Schmidt,  whose  nom  de  plume  was 
Max  Stirner.  Read  only  by  a  few  scholars,  the  book  is  buried 
in  obscurity,  but  is  destined  to  a  resurrection  that  perhaps 
will  mark  an  epoch. 

If  this,  then,  were  a  question  of  right,  it  would  be,  accord- 
ing to  the  Anarchists,  purely  a  question  of  strength.  But, 
fortunately,  it  is  not  a  question  of  right  :  it  is  a  question  of 
expediency,  of  knowledge,  of  science— the  science  of  living 
together,  the  science  of  society.  The  history  of  humanity 
has  been  largely  one  long  and  gradual  discovery  of  the  fact 
that  the  individual  is  the  gainer  by  society  exactly  in  propor- 
tion as  society  is  free,  and  of  the  law  that  the  condition  of  a 
permanent  and  harmonious  society  is  the  greatest  amount  of 
individual  liberty  compatible  with  equality  of  liberty.  The 
average  man  of  each  new  generation  has  said  to  himself  more 
clearly  and  consciously  than  his  predecessor  :  "  My  neighbor 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE. 


25 


is  not  my  enemy,  but  my  friend,  and  I  am  his,  if  we  would 
but  mutually  recognize  the  fact.  We  help  each  other  to  a 
better,  fuller,  happier  living  ;  and  this  service  might  be  greatly 
increased  if  we  would  cease  to  restrict,  hamper,  and  oppress 
each  other.  Why  can  we  not  agree  to  let  each  live  his  own 
life, neither  of  us  transgressing  the  limit  that  separates  our  in- 
dividualities ? "  It  is  by  this  reasoning  that  mankind  is  ap- 
proaching the  real  social  contract,  which  is  not,  as  Rousseau 
thought,  the  origin  of  society,  but  rather  the  outcome  of  a  long 
social  experience,  the  fruit  of  its  follies  and  disasters.  It  is 
obvious  that  this  contract,  this  social  law,  developed  to  its 
perfection,  excludes  all  aggression,  all  violation  of  equality  of 
liberty,  all  invasion  of  every  kind.  Considering  this  contract 
in  connection  with  the  Anarchistic  definition  of  the  State  as 
the  embodiment  of  the  principle  of  invasion,  we  see  that  the 
State  is  antagonistic  to  society  ;  and,  society  being  essential  to 
individual  life  and  development,  the  conclusion  leaps  to  the 
eyes  that  the  relation  of  the  State  to  the  individual  and  of  the 
individual  to  the  State  must  be  one  of  hostility,  enduring  till 
the  State  shall  perish. 

"  But,"  it  will  be  asked  of  the  Anarchists  at  this  point  in 
the  argument,  "  what  shall  be  done  with  those  individuals  who 
undoubtedly  will  persist  in  violating  the  social  law  by  invading 
their  neighbors  ?"  The  Anarchists  answer  that  the  abolition 
of  the  State  will  leave  in  existence  a  defensive  association,  rest- 
ing no  longer  on  a  compulsory  but  on  a  voluntary  basis,  which 
will  restrain  invaders  by  any  means  that  may  prove  necessary. 
"  But  that  is  what  we  have  now,"  is  the  rejoinder.  "  You  really 
want,  then,  only  a  change  of  name?"  Not  so  fast,  please. 
Can  it  be  soberly  pretended  for  a  moment  that  the  State,  even 
as  it  exists  here  in  America,  is  purely  a  defensive  institution  ? 
Surely  not,  save  by  those  who  see  of  the  State  only  its  most 
;  palpable  manifestation, — the  policeman  on  the  street-corner. 
And  one  would  not  have  to  watch  him  very  closely  to  see  the 
error  of  this  claim.  Why,  the  very  first  act  of  the  State,  the 
compulsory  assessment  and  collection  of  taxes,  is  itself  an  ag- 
gression, a  violation  of  equal  liberty,  and,  as  such,  vitiates 
every  subsequent  act,  even  those  acts  which  would  be  purely 
defensive  if  paid  for  out  of  a  treasury  filled  by  voluntary  con- 
tributions. How  is  it  possible  to  sanction,  under  the  law  of 
equal  liberty,  the  confiscation  of  a  man's  earnings  to  pay  for 
protection  which  he  has  not  sought  and  does  not  desire  ?  And, 
if  this  is  an  outrage,  what  name  shall  we  give  to  such  confisca- 
tion when  the  victim  is  given,  instead  of  bread,  a  stone,  in- 
stead of  protection,  oppression  ?     To  force  a  man  to  pay  for 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


the  violation  of  his  own  liberty  is  indeed  an  addition  of  insult 
to  injury.  But  that  is  exactly  what  the  State  is  doing.  Read 
the  "-Congressional  Record  ";  follow  the  proceedings  of  the 
State  legislatures  ;  examine  our  statute-books ;  test  each  act 
separately  by  the  law  of  equal  liberty, — you  will  find  that  a 
good  nine-tenths  of  existing  legislation  serves,  not  to  enforce 
that  fundamental  social  law,  but  either  to  prescribe  the  indi- 
vidual's personal  habits,  or,  worse  still,  to  create  and  sustain 
commercial,  industrial,  financial,  and  proprietary  monopolies 
which  deprive  labor  of  a  large  part  of  the  reward  that  it 
would  receive  in  a  perfectly  free  market.  "  To  be  governed," 
says  Proudhon,  "  is  to  be  watched,  inspected,  spied,  directed, 
law-ridden,  regulated,  penned  up,  indoctrinated,  preached  at, 
checked,  appraised,  sized,  censured,  commanded,  by  beings 
who  have  neither  title  nor  knowledge  nor  virtue.  To  be  gov- 
erned is  to  have  every  operation,  every  transaction,  every 
movement  noted,  registered,  counted,  rated,  stamped,  meas- 
ured, numbered,  assessed,  licensed,  refused,  authorized,  in- 
dorsed, admonished,  prevented,  reformed,  redressed,  corrected. 
To  be  governed  is,  under  pretext  of  public  utility  and  in  the 
name  of  the  general  interest,  to  be  laid  under  contribution, 
drilled,  fleeced,  exploited,  monopolized,  extorted  from,  ex- 
hausted, hoaxed,  robbed  ;  then,  upon  the  slightest  resistance, 
at  the  first  word  of  complaint,  to  be  repressed,  fined,  vilified, 
annoyed,  hunted  down,  pulled  about,  beaten,  disarmed,  bound, 
imprisoned,  shot,  mitrailleused,  judged,  condemned,  banished, 
sacrificed,  sold,  betrayed,  and,  to  crown  all,  ridiculed,  derided, 
outraged,  dishonored."  And  I  am  sure  I  do  not  need  to 
point  out  to  you  the  existing  laws  that  correspond  to  and  jus- 
tify nearly  every  count  in  Proudhon's  long  indictment.  How 
thoughtless,  then,  to  assert  that  the  existing  political  order  is 
of  a  purely  defensive  character  instead  of  the  aggressive  State 
which  the  Anarchists  aim  to  abolish  ! 

.  This  leads  to  another  consideration  that  bears  powerfully 
upon  the  problem  of  the  invasive  individual,  who  is  such  a 
bugbear  to  the  opponents  of  Anarchism.  Is  it  not  such  treat- 
ment as  has  just  been  described  that  is  largely  responsible  for 
his  existence  ?  I  have  heard  or  read  somewhere  of  an  inscrip- 
tion written  for  a  certain  charitable  institution: 

"  This  hospital  a  pious  person  built, 

But  first  he  made  the  poor  wherewith  to  fill't." 

And  so,  it  seems  to  me,  it  is  with  our  prisons.  They  are 
filled  with  criminals  which  our  virtuous  State  has  made  what 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND  THE  STATE. 


~7 


they  are  by  its  iniquitous  laws,  its  grinding  monopolies,  and 
the  horrible  social  conditions  that  result  from  them.  We 
enact  many  laws  that  manufacture  criminals,  and  then  a  few 
that  punish  them.  Is  it  too  much  to  expect  that  the  new 
social  conditions  which  must  follow  the  abolition  of  all  inter- 
ference with  the  production  and  distribution  of  wealth  will  in 
the  end  so  change  the  habits  and  propensities  of  men  that  our 
jails  and  prisons,  our  policemen  and  our  soldiers, — in  a  word, 
our  whole  machinery  and  outfit  of  defence, — will  be  superflu- 
ous ?  That,  at  least,  is  the  Anarchists'  belief.  It  sounds 
Utopian,  but  it  really  rests  on  severely  economic  grounds. 
To-day,  however,  time  is  lacking  to  explain  the  Anarchistic 
view  of  the  dependence  of  usury,  and  therefore  of  poverty, 
upon  monopolistic  privilege,  especially  the  banking  privilege, 
and  to  show  how  an  intelligent  minority,  educated  in  the  prin- 
ciple of  Anarchism  and  determined  to  exercise  that  right  to  ig- 
nore the  State  upon  which  Spencer,  in  his  "  Social  Statics,"  so 
ably  and  admirably  insists,  might,  by  setting  at  defiance  the 
National  and  State  banking  prohibitions,  and  establishing  a 
Mutual  Bank  in  competition  with  the  existing  monopolies,  take 
the  first  and  most  important  step  m  the  abolition  of  usury  and 
of  the  State.  Simple  as  such  a  step  would  seem,  from  it  all 
the  rest  would  follow. 

A  half-hour  is  a  very  short  time  in  which  to  discuss  the 
relation  of  the  State  to  the  individual,  and  I  must  ask  your 
pardon  for  the  brevity  of  my  dealing  with  a  succession  of  con- 
siderations each  of  which  needs  an  entire  essay  for  its  devel- 
opment. If  I  have  outlined  the  argument  intelligibly,  I 
have  accomplished  all  that  I  expected.  But,  in  the  hope  of  im- 
pressing the  idea  of  the  true  social  contract  more  vividly  upon 
your  minds,  in  conclusion  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  reading 
another  page  from  Proudhon,  to  whom  I  am  indebted  for 
most  of  what  I  know,  or  think  I  know,  upon  this  subject. 
Contrasting  authority  with  free  contract,  he  says,  in  his  "  Gen- 
eral Idea  of  the  Revolution  of  the  Nineteenth  Century  "  :  — 

"Of  the  distance  that  separates  these  two  regimes,  we  may 
judge  by  the  difference  in  their  styles. 

"  One  of  the  most  solemn  moments  in  the  evolution  of 
the  principle  of  authority  is  that  of  the  promulgation  of  the 
Decalogue.  The  voice  of  the  angel  commands  the  People, 
prostrate  at  the  foot  of  Sinai: — 

"  Thou  shalt  worship  t lie  Eternal,  and  only  the  Eternal. 

"Thou  shalt  swear  only  by  him. 

"  Thou  shalt  keep  his  holidays,  and  thou  shalt  pay  his 
tithes. 


28 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


"  Thou  shalt  honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  kill. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  steal. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  covet  or  calumniate. 

"  For  the  Eternal  ordains  it,  and  it  is  the  Eternal  who  has 
made  you  what  you  are.  The  Eternal  is  alone  sovereign, 
alone  wise,  alone  worthy;  the  Eternal  punishes  and  rewards. 
It  is  in  the  power  of  the  Eternal  to  render  you  happy  or 
unhappy  at  his  will. 

"All  legislations  have  adopted  this  style;  all,  speaking  to 
man,  employ  the  sovereign  formula.  The  Hebrew  commands 
in  the  future,  the  Latin  in  the  imperative,  the  Greek  in  the 
infinitive.  The  moderns  do  not  otherwise.  The  tribune  of 
the  parliament-house  is  a  Sinai  as  infallible  and  as  terrible  as 
that  of  Moses;  whatever  the  law  may  be,  from  whatever  lips 
it  may  come,  it  is  sacred  once  it  has  been  proclaimed  by  that 
prophetic  trumpet,  which  with  us  is  the  majority. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  assemble. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  print. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  read. 

"  Thou  shalt  respect  thy  representatives  and  thy  officials, 
which  the  hazard  of  the  ballot  or  the  good  pleasure  of  the 
State  shall  have  given  you. 

"  Thou  shalt  obey  the  laws  which  they  in  their  wisdom  shall 
have  made. 

"  Thou  shalt  pay  thy  taxes  faithfully. 

"And  thou  shalt  love  the  Government,  thy  Lord  and  thy 
God,  with  all  thy  heart  and  with  all  thy  soul  and  with  all 
thy  mind,  because  the  Government  knows  better  than  thou 
what  thou  art,  what  thou  art  worth,  what  is  good  for  thee, 
and  because  it  has  the  power  to  chastise  those  who  disobey  its 
commandments,  as  well  as  to  reward  unto  the  fourth  genera- 
tion those  who  make  themselves  agreeable  to  it. 

"  With  the  Revolution  it  is  quite  different. 

"The  search  for  first  causes  and  for  final  causes  is  elimi- 
nated from  economic  science  as  from  the  natural  sciences. 

"  The  idea  of  Progress  replaces,  in  philosophy,  that  of  the 
Absolute. 

"  Revolution  succeeds  Revelation. 

"  Reason,  assisted  by  Experience,  discloses  to  man  the  laws 
of  Nature  and  Society;  then  it  says  to  him: — 

"  These  laws  are  those  of  necessity  itself.  No  man  has 
made  them;  no  man  imposes  them  upon  you.    They  have  been 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE. 


29 


gradually  discovered,  and  I  exist  only  to  bear  testimony  to 
them. 

"  If  you  observe  them,  you  will  be  just  and  good. 
"  If  you  violate  them,  you  will  be  unjust  and  wicked. 
"  I  offer  you  no  other  motive. 

"  Already,  among  your  fellows,  several  have  recognized  that 
justice  is  better,  for  each  and  for  all,  than  iniquity;  and  they 
have  agreed  with  each  other  to  mutually  keep-faith  and  right, — 
that  is,  to  respect  the  rules  of  transaction  which  the  nature 
of  things  indicates  to  them  as  alone  capable  of  assuring  them, 
in  the  largest  measure,  well-being,  security,  peace. 

"  Do  you  wish  to  adhere  to  their  compact,  to  form  a  part  of 
their  society  ? 

"  Do  you  promise  to  respect  the  honor,  the  liberty,  and  the 
goods  of  your  brothers  ? 

"Do  you  promise  never  to  appropriate,  either  by  violence, 
or  by  fraud,  or  by  usury,  or  by  speculation,  the  product  or  the 
possession  of  another  ? 

"  Do  you  promise  never  to  lie  and  deceive,  either  in  justice, 
or  in  business,  or  in  any  of  your  transactions  ? 

"  You  are  free  to  accept  or  to  refuse. 

"  If  you  refuse,  you  become  a  part  of  the  society  of  savages. 
Outside  of  the  communion  of  the  human  race,  you  become 
an  object  of  suspicion.  Nothing  protects  you.  At  the  slight- 
est insult,  the  first  comer  may  lift  his  hand  against  you  without 
incurring  any  other  accusation  than  that  of  cruelty  needlessly 
practised  upon  a  brute. 

"  On  the  contrary,  if  you  swear  to  the  compact,  you  become 
a  part  of  the.  society  of  free  men.  All  your  brothers  enter 
into  an  engagement  with  you,  promise  you  fidelity,  friendship, 
aid,  service,  exchange.  In  case  of  infraction,  on  their  part  or 
on  yours,  through  negligence,  passion,  or  malice,  you  are  re- 
sponsible to  each  other  for  the  damage  as  well  as  the  scandal 
and  the  insecurity  of  which  you  have  been  the  cause  :  this  re- 
sponsibility may  extend,  according  to  the  gravity  of  the  perjury 
or  the  repetitions  of  the  offence,  even  to  excommunication  and 
to  death. 

"  The  law  is  clear,  the  sanction  still  more  so.  Three  arti- 
cles, which  make  but  one, — that  is  the  whole  social  contract. 
Instead  of  making  oath  to  God  and  his  prince,  the  citizen 
swears  upon  his  conscience,  before  his  brothers,  and  before 
Humanity.  Between  these  two  oaths  there  is  the  same  differ- 
ence as  between  slavery  and  liberty,  faith  and  science,  courts 
and  justice,  usury  and  labor,  government  and  economy,  non- 
existence and  being,  God  and  man." 


INSTEAD  OF   A  ROOK. 


OUR  PURPOSE.* 

{Liberty,  August  6,  1881.J 

Liberty  enters  the  field  of  journalism  to  speak  for  herself 
because  she  finds  no  one  willing  to  speak  for  her.  She  hears 
no  voice  that  always  champions  her  ;  she  knows  no  pen  that 
always  writes  in  her  defence  ;  she  sees  no  hand  that  is  always 
lifted  to  avenge  her  wrongs  or  vindicate  her  rights.  Many 
claim  to  speak  in  her  name,  but  few  really  understand  her. 
Still  fewer  have  the  courage  and  the  opportunity  to  consist- 
ently fight  for  her.  Her  battle,  then,  is  her  own  to  wage  and 
win.    She  accepts  it  fearlessly  and  with  a  determined  spirit. 

Her  foe,  Authority,  takes  many  shapes,  but,  broadly  speak- 
ing, her  enemies  divide  themselves  into  three  classes  :  first, 
those  who  abhor  her  both  as  a  means  and  as  an  end  of  progress, 
opposing  her  openly,  avowedly,  sincerely,  consistently,  univer- 
sally ;  second,  those  who  profess  to  believe  in  her  as  a  means 
of  progress,  but  who  accept  her  only  so  far  as  they  think  she 
will  subserve  their  own  selfish  interests,  denying  her  and  her 
blessings  to  the  rest  of  the  world  ;  third,  those  who  distrust 
her  as  a  means  of  progress,  believing  in  her  only  as  an  end  to 
be  obtained  by  first  trampling  upon,  violating,  and  outraging 
her.  These  three  phases  of  opposition  to  Liberty  are  met  in 
almost  every  sphere  of  thought  and  human  activity.  Good 
representatives  of  the  first  are  seen  in  the  Catholic  Church 
and  the  Russian  autocracy  ;  of  the  second,  in  the  Protestant 
Church  and  the  Manchester  school  of  politics  and  political 
economy  ;  of  the  third,  in  the  atheism  of  Gambetta  and  the 
socialism  of  Karl  Marx. 

Through  these  forms  of  authority  another  line  of  demarca- 
tion runs  transversely,  separating  the  divine  from  the  human  ; 
or,  better  still,  the  religious  from  the  secular.  Liberty's  vic- 
tory over  the  former  is  well-nigh  achieved.  Last  century  Vol- 
taire brought  the  authority  of  the  supernatural  into  dis- 
repute. The  Church  has  been  declining  ever  since.  Her  teeth 
are  drawn,  and  though  she  seems  still  to  show  here  and 
there  vigorous  signs  of  life,  she  does  so  in  the  violence 
of  the  death-agony  upon  her,  and  soon  her  power  will 
be  felt  no  more.  It  is  human  authority  that  hereafter 
is  to  be  dreaded,  and  the  State,  its  organ,  that  in  the  future 
is  to  be  feared.    Those  who  have  lost  their  faith  in  gods 


*  Liberty  s  salutatory. 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE. 


3* 


only  to  put  it  in  governments  ;  those  who  have  ceased  to  be 
Church-worshippers  only  to  become  State-worshippers  ;  those 
who  have  abandoned  pope  for  king  or  czar,  and  priest  for  pres- 
ident or  parliament— have  indeed  changed  their  battle-ground, 
but  none  the  less  are  foes  of  Liberty  still.  The  Church  has 
become  an  object  of  derision  ;  the  State  must  be  made  equally 
so.  The  State  is  said  by  some  to  be  a  "  necessary  evil  "  ;  it 
must  be  made  unnecessary.  This  century's  battle,  then,  is 
with  the  State  :  the  State,  that  debases  man  ;  the  State,  that 
prostitutes  woman  ;  the  State,  that  corrupts  children  ;  the  State, 
that  trammels  love  ;  the  State,  that  stifles  thought  ;  the  State, 
that  monopolizes  land  ;  the  State,  that  limits  credit  ;  the 
State,  that  restricts  exchange  ;  the  State,  that  gives  idle  capital 
the  power  of  increase,  and,  through  interest,  rent,  profit,  and 
taxes,  robs  industrious  labor  of  its  products. 

How  the  State  does  these  things,  and  how  it  can  be  pre- 
vented from  doing  them,  Liberty  proposes  to  show  in  more 
detail  hereafter  in  the  prosecution  of  her  pupose.  Enough 
to  say  now  that  monopoly  and  privilege  must  be  destroyed, 
opportunity  afforded,  and  competition  encouraged.  This  is 
Liberty's  work,  and  "  Down  with  Authority  "  her  war-cry. 


CONTRACT  OR  ORGANISM,  WHAT'S  THAT  TO  US? 

[Liberty.  July  30,  1887.] 

Some  verv  interesting  and  valuable  discussion  is  going  on 
in  the  London  Jus  concerning  the  question  of  compulsory 
versus  voluntary  taxation.  In  the  issue  of  June  17  there  is  a 
communication  from  F.  W,  Read,  in  which  the  following 
passage  occurs: 

The  voluntary  taxation  proposal  really  means  the  dissolution  of  the 
State  into  its  constituent  atoms,  and  leaving  them  to  recombine  in  some 
way  or  no  way,  just  as  it  may  happen.  There  would  be  nothing  to  pre- 
vent the  existence  of  five  or  six  "States"  in  England,  and  members  oi 
all  these  "  States  "  might  be  living  in  the  same  house  !  The  proposal  is. 
it  appears  to  me,  the  outcome  of  an  idea  in  the  minds  of  those  who  pro- 
pound it  that  the  State  is,  or  ought  to  be,  founded  on  contract,  just  as  a 
joint-stock  company  is.  It  is  a  similar  idea  to  the  defunct  "  original  con- 
tract "  theory.  It  was  thought  the  State  must  rest  upon  a  contract.  There- 
had  been  no  contract  in  historic  times  ;  it  was  therefore  assumed  that  there 
had  been  a  prehistoric  contract.  The  voluntary  taxationist  says  there 
never  has  been  any  contract:  therefore  the  State  has  never  had  any  ethical 
basis  ;  therefore  we  will  not  make  a  contract.    The  explanation  of  the 


32 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


whole  matter,  I  believe,  is  that  given  by  Mr.  Wordsworth  Donisthorpe,— 
viz.,  that  the  State  is  a  social  organism,  evolved  as  every  other  organism 
is  evolved,  and  not  requiring  any  more  than  other  organisms  to  be  based 
upon  a  contract  either  original  or  contemporary. 

The  idea  that  the  voluntary  taxationist  objects  to  the  State 
precisely  because  it  does  not  rest  on  contract,  and  wishes  to 
substitute  contract  for  it,  is  strictly  correct,  and  I  am  glad  to 
see  (for  the  first  time,  if  my  memory  serves  me)  an  opponent 
grasp  it.  But  Mr.  Read  obscures  his  statement  by  his  previous 
remark  that  the  proposal  of  voluntary  taxation  is  "  the  out- 
come of  an  idea  .  .  .  that  the  State  is,  or  ought  to  be,  founded 
on  contract."  This  would  be  true  if  the  words  which  I  have 
italicized  should  be  omitted.  It  was  the  insertion  of  these 
words  that  furnished  the  writer  a  basis  for  his  otherwise 
groundless  analogy  between  the  Anarchists  and  the  followers 
of  Rousseau.  The  latter  hold  that  the  State  originated  in  a 
contract,  and  that  the  people  of  to-day,  though  they  did  not 
make  it,  are  bound  by  it.  The  Anarchists,  on  the  contrary, 
deny  that  any  such  contract  was  ever  made  ;  declare  that,  had 
one  ever  been  made,  it  could  not  impose  a  shadow  of  obliga- 
tion on  those  who  had  no  hand  in  making  it;  and  claim  the 
right  to  contract  for  themselves  as  they  please.  The  position 
that  a  man  may  make  his  own  contracts,  far  from  being 
analogous  to  that  which  makes  him  subject  to  contracts  made 
by  others,  is  its  direct  antithesis. 

It  is  perfectly  true  that  voluntary  taxation  would  not 
necessarily  "  prevent  the  existence  of  five  or  six  '  States  '  in 
England,"  and  that  "  members  of  all  these  1  States  '  might  be 
living  in  the  same  house."  But  I  see  no  reason  for  Mr.  Read's 
exclamation  point  after  this  remark.  What  of  it  ?  There  are 
many  more  than  five  or  six  Churches  in  England,  and  it  fre- 
quently happens  that  members  of  several  of  them  live  in  the 
same  house.  There  are  many  more  than  five  or  six  insurance 
companies  in  England,  and  it  is  by  no  means  uncommon  for 
members  of  the  same  family  to  insure  their  lives  and  goods 
against  accident  or  fire  in  different  companies.  Does  any 
harm  come  of  it  ?  Why,  then,  should  there  not  be  a  consider- 
able number  of  defensive  associations  in  England,  in  which 
people,  even  members  of  the  same  family,  might  insure  their 
lives  and  goods  against  murderers  or  thieves  ?  Though  Mr. 
Read  has  grasped  one  idea  of  the  voluntary  taxationists,  I  fear 
that  he  sees  another  much  less  clearly, — namely,  the  idea  that 
defence  is  a  service,  like  -any  other  service  ;  that  it  is  labor  both 
useful  and  desired,  and  therefore  an  economic  commodity  sub- 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE. 


33 


ject  to  the  law  of  supply  and  demand  ;  that  in  a  free  market 
this  commodity  would  be  furnished  at  the  cost  of  production; 
that,  competition  prevailing,  patronage  would  go  to  those  who 
furnished  the  best  article  at  the  lowest  price ;  that  the  production 
and  sale  of  this  commodity  are  now  monopolized  by  the  State; 
that  the  State,  like  almost  all  monopolists,  charges  exorbitant 
prices;  that,  like  almost  all  monopolists,  it  supplies  a  worthless, 
or  nearly  worthless,  article  ;  that,  just  as  the  monopolist  of  a 
food  product  often  furnishes  poison  instead  of  nutriment,  so 
the  State  takes  advantage  of  its  monopoly  of  defence  to  furnish 
invasion  instead  of  protection  ;  that,  just  as  the  patrons  of  the 
one  pay  to  be  poisoned,  so  the  patrons  of  the  other  pay  to  be 
enslaved  ;  and,  finally,  that  the  State  exceeds  all  its  fellow- 
monopolists  in  the  extent  of  its  villany  because  it  enjoys  the 
unique  privilege  of  compelling  all  people  to  buy  its  product 
whether  they  want  it  or  not.  If,  then,  five  or  six  "  States  " 
were  to  hang  out  their  shingles,  the  people,  I  fancy,  would  be 
able  to  buy  the  very  best  kind  of  security  at  a  reasonable  price. 
And  what 'is  more,— the  better  their  services,  the  less  ^  they 
would  be  needed  ;  so  that  the  multiplication  of  "  States  "  in- 
volves the  abolition  of  the  State. 

All  these  considerations,  however,  are  disposed  of,  in  Mr. 
Read's  opinion,  by  his  final  assertion  that  "  the  State  is  asocial 
organism."  He  considers  this  "  the  explanation  of  the  whole 
matter."  But  for  the  life  of  me  I  can  see  in  it  nothing  but 
another  irrelevant  remark.  Again  I  ask:  What  of  it  ?  Suppose 
the  State  is  an  organism— what  then  ?  What  is  the  inference  ?' 
That  the  State  is  therefore  permanent?  But  what  is  history' 
but  a  record  of  the  dissolution  of  organisms  and  the  birth  and 
growth  of  others  to  be  dissolved  in  turn  ?  Is  the  State  exempt 
from  this  order?  If  so,  why?  What  proves  it  ?  The  State 
an  organism  ?  Yes  ;  so  is  a  tiger.  But  unless  I  meet  him  when 
I  haven't  my  gun,  his  organism  will  speedly  disorganize.  The 
State  is  a  tiger  seeking  to  devour  the  people,  and  they  must 
either  kill  or  cripple  it.  Their  own  safety  depends  upon  it. 
But  Mr.  Read  says  it  can't  be  done.  "  By  no  possibility  can 
the  power  of  the  State  be  restrained."  This  must  be  very  dis- 
appointing to  Mr.  Donisthorpe  and  Jus,  who  are  working  to 
restrain  it.  If  Mr.  Read  is  right,  their  occupation  is  gone.  Is 
he  right  ?  Unless  he  can  demonstrate  it,  the  voluntary  taxa- 
tionists  and  the  Anarchists  will  continue  their  work,  cheered 
by  the  belief  that  the  compulsory  and  invasive  State  is  doomed 
to  die. 


34 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


THE  NATURE  OF   THE  STATE. 

[Liberty,  October  22,  1887.] 

Below  is  reprinted  from  the  London  Jus  the  reply  of  F. 
W.  Read  to  the  editorial  in  No.  104  of  Liberty,  entitled  "  Con- 
tract or  Organism,  What's  That  to  Us?" 

To  the  Editor-vf  Jus  : 

Sir,  — Referring  to  Mr.  Tucker's  criticisms  on  my  letters  in  Jus  deal- 
ing with  Voluntary  Taxation,  the  principle  of  a  State  organism  seems  to 
be  at  the  bottom  of  the  controversy.  I  will  therefore  deal  with  that  first, 
although  it  comes  last  in  Mr.  Tucker's  article.  Mr.  Tucker  asks  whether 
the  State  being  an  organism  makes  it  permanent  and  exempt  from  disso- 
lution. Certainly  not  ;  I  never  said  it  did.  But  cannot  Mr.  Tucker  see 
that  dissolving  an  organism  is  something  different  from  dissolving  a  col- 
lection of  atoms  with  no  organic  structure  ?  If  the  people  of  a  State  had 
been  thrown  together  yesterday  or  the  day  before,  no  particular  harm 
would  come  from  splitting  them  into  numerous  independent  sections;  but 
when  a  people  has  grown  together  generation  after  generation,  and  cen- 
tury after  century,  to  break  up  the  adaptations  and  correlations  that  have 
been  established  can  scarcely  be  productive  of  any  good  results.  The 
tiger  is  an  organism,  says  Mr.  Tucker,  but  if  shot  he  will  be  speedily  dis- 
organized. Quite  so;  but  nobody  supposes  that  the  atoms  of  the  tiger's 
body  derive  any  benefit  from  the  process.  Why  should  the  atoms  of  the 
body  politic  derive  any  advantage  from  the  dissolution  of  the  organism  of 
which  they  form  a  part  ?  That  Mr.  Tucker  should  put  the  State  on  a  level 
with  churches  and  insurance  companies  is  simply  astounding.  Does  Mr. 
Tucker  really  think  that  five  or  six  "  States  "  could  exist  side  by  side  with 
the  same  convenience  as  an  equal  number  of  churches  ?  The  difficulty  of 
determining  what  "  State  "  an  individual  belonged  to  would  be  practically 
insuperable.  How  are  assaults  and  robberies  to  be  dealt  with  ?  Is  a  man 
to  be  tried  by  the  "  State  "of  which  he  is  a  citizen,  or  by  the  "  State"  ot 
the  party  aggrieved  ?  If  by  his  own,  how  is  a  police  officer  of  that  "  State  " 
to  know  whether  a  certain  individual  belongs  to  it  or  not  ?  The  difficulties 
are  so  enormous  that  the  State  would  soon  be  reformed  on  the  old  lines. 
Another  great  difficulty  would  be  that  the  State  would  find  it  impossible  to 
make  a  contract.  If  the  State  is  regarded  as  a  mere  collection  of  indi- 
viduals, who  will  lend  money  on  State  security  ?  The  reason  the  State  is 
trusted  at  all  is  because  it  is  regarded  as  something  over  and  above  the  in- 
dividuals who  happen  to  compose  it  at  any  given  time  ;  because  we  feel 
that,  while  individuals  die,  the  State  remains,  and  that  the  State  will  honor 
State  contracts,  even  if  made  for  purposes  that  are  disapproved  by  those 
who  are  the  atoms  of  the  State  organism.  I  have,  indeed,  heard  it  said 
that  it  would  be  a  good  thing  if  the  State  did  find  it  impossible  to  pledge 
its  credit;  but  good  credit  seems  as  useful  to  a  State  as  to  an  individual. 
Again,  is  it  no  advantage  to  us  to  be  able  to  make  treaties  with  foreign 
countries?  But  what  country  will  make  a  treaty  with  a  mere  mass  of  indi- 
viduals, a  large  portion  of  whom  will  be  gone  in  ten  years'  time? 

But  apart  from  the  question  of  organism  or  no  organism,  does  not  his- 
tory show  us  a  continuous  weakening  of  the  State  in  some  directions,  and 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE* 


35 


a  continuous  strengthening  in  other  directions  ?  We  find  a  gradual  disap- 
pearance of  the  desire  "  to  furnish  invasion  instead  of  protection,"  and,  as 
the  State  ceases  to  do  so,  the  more  truly  strong  does  it  become,  and  the 
more  vigorously  does  it  carry  out  what  I  regard  as  its  ultimate  function, — 
that  of  protecting  some  against  the  aggression  of  others. 

One  word  in  conclusion  as  to  restraining  the  power  of  the  State.  Of 
course  by  restraint  I  mean  legal  restraint.  For  instance,  you  could  not 
deprive  the  State  of  its  taxing  power  by  passinga  law  to  that  effect.  The 
framers  of  the  Act  of  Union  between  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  tried  to 
restrain  the  power  of  the  State  to  disestablish  the  Irish  Church  ;  but  the 
Irish  Church  was  disestablished  for  all  that.  What  Individualists  are  try- 
ing to  do  is  to  show  the  State  that,  when  it  regulates  factories  and  coal 
mines,  and  a  thousand  and  one  other  things,  it  is  acting  against  its  own 
interests.  When  the  State  has  learned  the  lesson,  the  meddling  will  cease. 
If  Mr.  Tucker  chooses  to  call  that  restraining  the  State,  he  can  do  so;  I 
don't.  Yours  truly,  etc.,  F.  W.  Read. 

In  answer  to  Mr.  Read's  statement  (which,  if,  with  all  its 
implications,  it  were  true,  would  be  a  valid  and  final  answer  to 
the  Anarchists)  that  "  dissolving  an  organism  is  something 
different  from  dissolving  a  collection  of  atoms  with  no  organic 
structure,"  I  cannot  do  better  than  quote  the  following  pas- 
sage from  an  article  by  J.  Win.  Lloyd  in  Xo.  107  of  Liberty  : 

It  appears  to  me  that  this  universe  is  but  avast  aggregate  of  individuals; 
of  individuals  simple  and  primary,  and  of  individuals  complex,  secondary, 
tertiary,  etc. ,  formed  by  the  aggregation  of  primary  individuals  or  of  in- 
dividuals of  a  lesser  degree  of  complexity.  Some  of  these  individuals  of 
a  high  degree  of  complexity  are  true  individuals,  concrete,  so  united  that 
the  lesser  organisms  included  cannot  exist  apart  from  the  main  organism; 
while  others  are  imperfect,  discrete,  the  included  organisms  existing  fairly 
well,  quite  as  well,  or  better,  apart  than  united.  In  the  former  class  are 
included  many  of  the  higher  forms  of  vegetable  and  animal  life,  including 
man,  and  in  the  latter  are  included  many  lower  forms  of  vegetable  and  ani- 
mal life  (quack-grass,  tape- worms,  etc.),  and  most  societary  organisms, 
governments,  nations,  churches,  armies,  etc. 

Taking  this  indisputable  view  of  the  matter,  it  becomes 
clear  that  Mr.  Read's  statement  about  "dissolving  an  organ- 
ism "  is  untrue  while  the  word  organism  remains  unqualified 
by  some  adjective  equivalent  to  Mr.  Lloyd's  co?icrete.  The 
question,  then,  is  whether  the  State  is  a  concrete  organism. 
The  Anarchists  claim  that  it  is  not.  If  Mr.  Read  thinks  that 
it  is,  the  onus  probandi  is  upon  him.  1  judge  that  his  error 
arises  from  a  confusion  of  the  State  with  society.  That  soci- 
ety is  a  concrete  organism  the  Anarchists  do  not  deny;  on  the 
contrary,  they  insist  upon  it.  Consequently  they  have  no  in- 
tention or  desire  to  abolish  it.  They  know  that  its  life  is  in- 
separable from  the  lives  of  individuals  ;  that  it  is  impossible  to 
destroy  one  without  destroying  the  other.  But,  though  society 
cannot  be  destroyed,  it  can  be  greatly  hampered  and  impeded 


INSTEAD   OK    A  BOOK. 


in  its  operations,  much  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  individuals 
composing  it,  and  it  meets  its  chief  impediment  in  the  State. 
The  State,  unlike  society,  is  a  discrete  organism.  If  it  should 
be  destroyed  to-morrow,  individuals  would  still  continue  to 
exist.  Production,  exchange,  and  association  would  go  on  as 
before,  but  much  more  freely,  and  all  those  social  functions 
upon  which  the  individual  is  dependent  would  operate  in  his 
behalf  more  usefully  than  ever.  The  individual  is  not  related 
to  the  State  as  the  tiger's  paw  is  related  to  the  tiger.  Kill  the 
tiger,  and  the  tiger's  paw  no  longer  performs  its  office;  kill  the 
State,  and  the  individual  still  lives  and  satisfies  his  wants.  As 
for  society,  the  Anarchists  would  not  kill  it  if  they  could,  and 
could  not  if  they  would. 

Mr.  Read  finds  it  astounding  that  I  should  "  put  the  State 
on  a  level  with  churches  and  insurance  companies."  I  find  his 
astonishment  amusing.  Believers  in  compulsory  religious  sys- 
tems were  astounded  when  it  was  first  proposed  to  put  the 
church  on  a  level  with  other  associations.  Now  the  only  as- 
tonishment is — at  least  in  the  United  States — that  the  church 
is  allowed  to  stay  at  any  other  level.  But  the  political  super- 
stition has  replaced  the  religious  superstition,  and  Mr.  Read  is 
under  its  sway. 

I  do  not  think  "  that  five  or  six  1  States '  could  exist  side  by 
side  with  "  quite  "  the  same  convenience  as  an  equal  number 
of  churches."  In  the  relations  with  which  States  have  to  do 
there  is  more  chance  for  friction  than  in  the  simply  religious 
sphere.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  friction  resulting  from  a 
multiplicity  of  States  would  be  but  a  mole-hill  compared  with 
the  mountain  of  oppression  and  injustice  which  is  gradually 
heaped  up  by  a  single  compulsory  State.  It  would  not  be 
necessary  for  a  police  officer  of  a  voluntary  "  State  "  to  know 
to  what  "  State  "  a  given  individual  belonged,  or  whether  he 
belonged  to  any.  Voluntary  "  States  "  could,  and  probably 
would,  authorize  their  executives  to  proceed  against  invasion, 
no  matter  who  the  invader  or  invaded  might  be.  Mr.  Read 
will  probably  object  that  the  "  State  "  to  which  the  invader 
belonged  might  regard  his  arrest  as  itself  an  invasion,  and 
proceed  against  the  "  State  "  which  arrested  him.  Antici- 
pation of  such  conflicts  would  probably  result  exactly  in 
those  treaties  between  "  States  "  which  Mr.  Read  looks  upon 
as  so  desirable,  and  even  in  the  establishment  of  federal 
tribunals,  as  courts  of  last  resort,  by  the  co-operation  of  the 
various  "  States,"  on  the  same  voluntary  principle  in  accord- 
ance with  which  the  "  States  "  themselves  were  organized. 

Voluntary  taxation,  far  from  impairing  the  "  State's  "  credit, 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  37 


would  strengthen  it.  In  the  first  place,  the  simplification  of 
.its  functions  would  greatly  reduce,  and  perhaps  entirely 
abolish,  its  need  to  borrow,  and  the  power  to  borrow  is  gener- 
ally inversely  proportional  to  the  steadiness  of  the  need.  It 
is  usually  the  inveterate  borrower  who  lacks  credit.  In  the 
second  place,  the  power  of  the  State  to  repudiate,  and  still 
continue  its  business,  is  dependent  upon  its  power  of  com- 
pulsory taxation.  It  knows  that,  when  it  can  no  longer 
borrow,  it  can  at  least  tax  its  citizens  up  to  the  limit  of 
revolution.  In  the  third  place,  the  State  is  trusted,  not  be- 
cause it  is  over  and  above  individuals,  but  because  the  lender 
presumes  that  it  desires  to  maintain  its  credit  and  will  there- 
fore pay  its  debts.  This  desire  for  credit  will  be  stronger  in 
a  "  State  "  supported  by  voluntary  taxation  than  in  the  -State 
which  enforces  taxation. 

All  the  objections  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Read  (except 
the  organism  argument)  are  mere  difficulties  of  adminis- 
trative detail,  to  be  overcome  by  ingenuity,  patience,  dis- 
cretion, and  expedients.  They  are  not  logical  difficulties,  not 
difficulties  of  principle.  They  seem  "  enormous  "  to  him  ;  but 
so  seemed  the  difficulties  of  freedom  of  thought  two  centuries 
ago.  What  does  he  think  of'  the  difficulties  of  the  existing 
re'gi?ne  ?  Apparently  he  is  as  blind  to  them  as  is  the  Roman 
Catholic  to  the  difficulties  of  a  State  religion.  All  these 
"  enormous "  difficulties  which  arise  in  the  fancy  of  the 
objectors  to  the  voluntary  principle  will  gradually  vanish 
under  the  influence  of  the  economic  changes  and  well-dis- 
tributed prosperity  which  will  follow  the  adoption  of  that 
principle.  This  is  what  Proudhon  calls  "  the  dissolution  of 
government  in  the  economic  organism."  It  is  too  vast  a  sub- 
ject for  consideration  here,  but,  if  Mr.  Read  wishes  to  under- 
stand the  Anarchistic  theory  of  the  process,  let  him  study  that 
most  wonderful  of  all  the  wonderful  books  of  Proudhon,  the 
''Idee  Generale  de  la  Revolution  au  Dix-Neuvieme  Siecle." 

It  is  true  that  "  history  shows  a  continuous  weakening  of 
the  State  in  some  directions,  and  a  continuous  strengthening 
in  other  directions."  At  least  such  is  the  tendency,  broadly 
speaking,  though  this  continuity  is  sometimes  broken  by 
periods  of  reaction.  This  tendency  is  simply  the  progress  of 
evolution  towards  Anarchy.  The  State  invades  less  and  less, 
and  protects  more  and  more.  It  is  exactly  in  the  line  of  this 
process,  and  at  the  end  of  it,  that  the  Anarchists  demand  the 
abandonment  of  the  last  citadel  of  invasion  by  the  substitu- 
tion of  voluntary  for  compulsory  taxation.  When  this  step 
is  taken,  the  4<  State  "  will  achieve  its  maximum  strength  as  a 


3« 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


protector  against  aggression,  and  will  maintain  it  as  long  as  its 
services  are  needed  in  that  capacity. 

If  Mr.  Read,  in  saying  that  the  power  of  the  State  cannot 
be  restrained,  simply  meant  that  it  cannot  be  legally  restrained, 
his  remark  had  no  fitness  as  an  answer  to  Anarchists  and 
voluntary  taxationists.  They  do  not  propose  to  legally  re- 
strain it.  They  propose  to  create  a  public  sentiment  that  will 
make  it  impossible  for  the  State  to  collect  taxes  by  force  or 
in  any  other  way  invade  the  individual.  Regarding  the  State 
as  an  instrument  of  aggression,  they  do  not  expect  to  convince 
it  that  aggression  is  against  its  interests,  but  they  do  expect  to 
convince  individuals  that  it  is  against  their  interests  to  be  in- 
vaded. If  by  this  means  they  succeed  in  stripping  the  State 
of  its  invasive  powers,  they  will  be  satisfied,  and  it  is  im- 
material to  them  whether  the  means  is  described  by  the  word 
"  restraint "  or  by  some  other  word.  In  fact,  I  have  striven 
in  this  discussion  to  accommodate  myself  to  Mr.  Read's 
phraseology.  For  myself  I  do  not  think  it  proper  to  call 
voluntary  associations  States,  but,  enclosing  the  word  in 
quotation  marks,  I  have  so  used  it  because  Mr.  Read  set  the 
example. 


A  MISINTERPRETATION  OF  ANARCHISM. 

[Liberty,  March  8,  1890.] 

One  of  the  most  interesting  papers  that  come  to  this  office 
is  the  Personal  Rights  Journal  of  London.  Largely  written 
by  men  like  J.  H.  Levy  and  Wordsworth  Donisthorpe,  it  could 
not  be  otherwise.  Virtually  it  champions  the  same  political 
faith  that  finds  an  advocate  in  Liberty.  It  means  by  indi- 
vidualism what  Liberty  means  by  Anarchism.  That  it  does 
not  realize  this  fact,  and  that  it  assumes  Anarchism  to  be 
something  other  than  complete  individualism,  is  the  principal 
difference  between  us.  This  misunderstanding  of  Anarchism 
is  very  clearly  and  cleverly  exhibited  in  a  passage  which  I 
copy  from  a  keen  and  thought-provoking  lecture  on  "  The 
Outcome  of  Individualism,"  delivered  by  J.  H.  Levy  before 
the  National  Liberal  Club  on  January  10,  1890,  and  printed 
in  the  Personal  Rights  Journal  of  January  and  February  : 

If  we  are  suffering  from  a  poison,  we  find  it  advantageous  to  take 
a  second  poison,  which  acts  as  an  antidote  to  the  first.    But,  if  we  are 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE. 


39 


wise,  we  limit  our  dose  of  the  second  poison  so  that  the  toxic  effects  of 
both  combined  are  at  the  minimum.  If  we  take  more  of  it,  it  produces 
toxic  effects  of  its  own  beyond  those  necessary  to  counteract,  so  far  as 
possible,  the  first  poison.  If  we  take  less  of  it,  the  first  poison,  to  some 
extent,  will  do  its  bad  work  unchecked.  This  illustrates  the  position  of 
the  Individualist,  against  the  Socialist  on  the  one  side  and  the  Anarchist 
on  the  other.  I  recognize  that  government  is  an  evil.  It  always  means 
the  employment  of  force  against  our  fellow-man,  and — at  the  very  best — 
his  subjection,  over  a  larger  or  smaller  extent  of  the  field  of  conduct,  to 
the  will  of  a  majority  of  his  fellow-citizens.  But  if  this  organized  or  reg- 
ularized interference  were  utterly  abolished,  he  would  not  escape  from 
aggression.  He  would,  in  such  a  society  as  ours,  be  liable  to  far  more 
violence  and  fraud,  which  would  be  a  much  worse  evil  than  the  inter- 
vention of  government  needs  be.  But  when  government  pushes  its  in- 
terference beyond  the  point  of  maintaining  the  widest  liberty  equally  for 
all  citizens,  it  is  itself  the  aggressor,  and  none  the  less  so  because  its 
motives  are  good. 

Names  aside,  the  thing  that  Individualism  favors,  accord- 
ing to  the  foregoing,  is  organization  to  maintain  the  widest 
liberty  equally  for  all  citizens.  Well,  that  is  precisely  what 
Anarchism  favors.  Individualism  does  not  want  such  organ- 
ization any  longer  than  is  necessary.  Neither  does  Anarchism. 
Mr.  Levy's  assumption  that  Anarchism  does  not  want  such 
organization  at  all  arises  from  his  failure  to  recognize  the 
Anarchistic  definition  of  government.  Government  has  been 
denned  repeatedly  in  these  columns  as  the  subjection  of  the 
non-invasive  individual  to  a  will  not  his  own.  The  subjection 
of  the  invasive  individual  is  not  government,  but  resistance  to 
and  protection  from  government.  By  these  definitions  govern- 
ment is  always  an  evil,  but  resistance  to  it  is  never  an  evil  or 
a  poison.  Call  such  resistance  an  antidote  if  you  will,  but 
remember  that  not  all  antidotes  are  poisonous.  The  worst 
that  can  be  said  of  resistance  or  protection  is,  not  that  it  is  an 
evil,  but  that  it  is  a  loss  of  productive  force  in  a  necessary 
effort  to  overcome  evil.  It  can  be  called  an  evil  only  in  the 
sense  that  needful  and  not  especially  healthful  labor  can  be 
called  a  curse.  The  poison  illustration,  good  enough  with 
Mr.  Levy's  definitions,  has  no  force  with  the  Anarchistic  use 
of  terms. 

Government  is  invasion,  and  the  State,  as  defined  in  the  last 
issue  of  Liberty,  is  the  embodiment  of  invasion  in  an  indi- 
vidual, or  band  of  individuals,  assuming  to  act  as  representa- 
tives or  masters  of  the  entire  people  within  a  given  area.  The 
Anarchists  are  opposed  to  all  government,  and  especially  to 
the  State  as  the  worst  governor  and  chief  invader.  From 
Liberty  s  standpoint,  there  are  not  three  positions,  but  two  : 
one,  that  of  the  authoritarian  Socialists,  favoring  government 


40 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


and  the  State  ;  the  other,  that  of  the  Individualists  and  Anar- 
chists, against  government  and  the  State. 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  Levy  expressly  accords  liberty  of  defini- 
tion, and  therefore  I  should  not  have  said  a  word  if  he  had 
simply  stated  the  Individualist  position  without  misinterpreting 
the  Anarchist  position.  But  in  view  of  this  misinterpretation, 
I  must  ask  him  to  correct  it,  unless  he  can  show  that  my 
criticism  is  invalid. 

I  may  add,  in  conclusion,  that  very  probably  the  disposition 
of  the  Individualist  to  give  greater  prominence  than  does  the 
Anarchist  to  the  necessity  of  organization  for  protection  is 
due  to  the  fact  that  he  seems  to  see  less  clearly  than  the  An- 
archist that  the  necessity  for  defence  against  individual  in- 
vaders is  largely  and  perhaps,  in  the  end,  wholly  due  to  the 
oppressions  of  the  invasive  State,  and  that  when  the  State 
falls,  criminals  will  begin  to  disappear. 


MR.  LEVY'S  MAXIMUM. 

[Liberty,  November  i,  1890.] 

"  Whatever  else  Anarchism  may  mean,  it  means  that  State 
coercion  of  peaceable  citizens,  into  co-operation  in  restraining 
the  activity  of  Bill  Sikes,  is  to  be  condemned  and  ought  to  be 
abolished.  Anarchism  implies  the  right  of  an  individual  to 
stand  aside  and  see  a  man  murdered  or  a  woman  raped.  It 
implies  the  right  'of  the  would-be  passive  accomplice  of  ag- 
gression to  escape  all  coercion.  It  is  true  the  Anarchist  may 
voluntarily  co-operate  to  check  aggression  ;  but  also  he  may 
not.  Qua  Anarchist,  he  is  within  his  right  in  withholding 
such  co-operation,  in  leaving  others  to  bear  the  burden  of 
resistance  to  aggression,  or  in  leaving  the  aggressor  to  triumph 
unchecked.  Individualism,  on  the  other  hand,  would  not 
only  restrain  the  active  invader  up  to  the  point  necessary  to 
restore  freedom  to  others,  but  would  also  coerce  the  man  who 
would  otherwise  be  a  passive  witness  of,  or  conniver  at,  ag- 
gression into  co-operation  against  his  more  active  colleague." 

The  foregoing  paragraph  occurs  in  an  ably-written  article 
by  Mr.  J.  H.  Levy  in  the  Personal  Rights  Journal.  The  writer's 
evident  intention  was  to  put  Anarchism  in  an  unfavorable  light 
by  stating  its  principles,  or  one  of  them,  in  a  very  offensive 
way.     At  the  same  time  it  was  his  intention  also  to  be  fair, — 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,    AND   THE  STATE.  41 


that  is,  not  to  distort  the  doctrine  of  Anarchism, — and  he  has 
not  distorted  it.  I  reprint  the  paragraph  in  editorial  type  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  it,  as  an  Anarchist,  my  entire  approval, 
barring  the  stigma  sought  to  be  conveyed  by  the  words  "  ac- 
complice "  and  "  conniver."  If  a  man  will  but  state  the  truth 
as  I  see  it,  he  may  state  it  as  baldly  as  he  pleases  ;  I  will  ac- 
cept it  still.  The  Anarchists  are  not  afraid  of  their  principles. 
It  is  far  more  satisfactory  to  have  one's  position  stated  baldly 
and  accurately  by  an  opponent  who  understands  it  than  in  a 
genial,  milk-and-water,  and  inaccurate  fashion  by  an  igno- 
ramus. 

It  is  agreed,  then,  that,  in  Anarchism's  view,  an  individual  has 
aright  to  stand  aside  and  see  a  man  murdered.  And  pray,  why 
not  ?  If  it  is  justifiable  to  collar  a  man  who  is  minding  his 
own  business  and  force  him  into  a  fight,  why  may  we  not  also 
collar  him  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  him  to  help  us  to  coerce 
a  parent  into  educating  his  child,  or  to  commit  any  other  act 
of  invasion  that  may  seem  to  us  for  the  general  good  ?  I  can 
see  no  ethical  distinction  here  whatever.  It  is  true  that  Mr. 
Levy,  in  the  succeeding  paragraph,  justifies  the  collaring  of 
the  non-co-operative  individual  on  the  ground  of  necessity.  (I 
note  here  that  this  is  the  same  ground  on  which  Citizen  Most 
proposes  to  collar  the  non-co-operator  in  his  communistic  en- 
terprises and  make  him  work  for  love  instead  of  wages.)  But 
some  other  motive  than  necessity  must  have  been  in  Mr. 
Levy's  mind,  unconsciously,  when  he  wrote  the  paragraph 
which  I  have  quoted.  Else  why  does  he  deny  that  the  non- 
co-operator  is  "  within  his  right  "  ?  I  can  understand  the  man 
who  in  a  crisis  justifies  no  matter  what  form  of  compulsion  on 
the  ground  of  sheer  necessity,  but  I  cannot  understand  the 
man  who  denies  the  right  of  the  individual  thus  coerced  to 
resist  such  compulsion  and  insist  on  pursuing  his  own  inde- 
pendent course.  It  is  precisely  this  denial,  however,  that  Mr. 
Levy  makes  ;  otherwise  his  phrase  "  within  his  right  "  is 
meaningless. 

_  But  however  this  may  be,  let  us  look  at  the  plea  of  neces- 
sity. Mr.  Levy  claims  that  the  coercion  of  the  peaceful  non- 
co-operator  is  necessary.  Necessary  to  what  ?  Necessary, 
answers  Mr.  Levy,  "  in  order  that  freedom  may  be  at  the 
maximum."  Supposing  for  the  moment  that  this  is  true, 
another  inquiry  suggests  itself  :  Is  the  absolute  maximum  of 
freedom  an  end  to  be  attained  at  any  cost?  I  regard  liberty  as 
the  chief  essential  to  man's  happiness,  and  therefore  as  the 
most  important  thing  in  the  world,  and  I  certainly  want  as 
much  of  it  as  I  can  get.    But  I  cannot  see  that  it  concerns  mu 


4* 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


much  whether  the  aggregate  amount  of  liberty  enjoyed  by  all 
individuals  added  together  is  at  its  maximum  or  a  little  below 
it,  if  I,  as  one  individual,  am  to  have  little  or  none  of  this  ag- 
gregate. If,  however,  I  am  to  have  as  much  liberty  as  others, 
and  if  others  are  to  have  as  much  as  I,  then,  feeling  secure  in 
what  we  have,  it  will  behoove  us  all  undoubtedly  to  try  to 
attain  the  maximum  of  liberty  compatible  with  this  condition 
of  equality.  Which  brings  us  back  to  the  familiar  law  of 
equal  liberty, — the  greatest  amount  of  individual  liberty  com- 
patible with  the  equality  of  liberty.  But  this  maximum  of 
liberty  is  a  very  different  thing  from  that  which  is  to  be  at- 
tained, according  to  the  hypothesis,  only  by  violating  equality 
of  liberty.  For,  certainly,  to  coerce  the  peaceful  non-co-oper- 
ator is  to  violate  equality  of  liberty.  If  my  neighbor  believes 
in  co-operation  and  I  do  not,  and  if  he  has  liberty  to  choose 
to  co-operate  while  I  have  no  liberty  to  choose  not  to  co-oper- 
ate, then  there  is  no  equality  of  liberty  between  us.  Mr. 
Levy's  position  is  analogous  to  that  of  a  man  who  should 
propose  to  despoil  certain  individuals  of  peacefully  and  hon- 
estly acquired  wealth  on  the  ground  that  such  spoliation  is 
necessary  in  order  that  wealth  may  be  at  the  maximum.  Of 
course  Mr.  Levy  would  answer  to  this  that  the  hypothesis  is 
absurd,  and  that  the  maximum  could  not  be  so  attained  ;  but 
he  clearly  would  have  to  admit,  if  pressed,  that,  even  if  it 
could,  the  end  is  not  important  enough  to  justify  such  means. 
To  be  logical  he  must  make  the  same  admission  regarding 
his  own  proposition. 

But,  after  all,  is  the  hypothesis  any  more  absurd  in  the  one 
case  than  in  the  other  ?  I  think  not.  It  seems  to  me  just  as 
impossible  to  attain  the  maximum  of  liberty  by  depriving 
people  of  their  liberty  as  to  attain  the  maximum  of  wealth  by 
depriving  people  of  their  wealth.  In  fact,  it  seems  to  me  that 
in  both  cases  the  means  is  absolutely  destructive  of  the  end. 
Mr.  Levy  wishes  to  restrict  the  functions  of  government  ; 
now,  the  compulsory  co-operation  that  he  advocates  is  the 
chief  obstacle  in  the  way  of  such  restriction.  To  be  sure, 
government  restricted  by  the  removal  of  this  obstacle  would 
no  longer  be  government,  as  Mr.  Levy  is  "  quick-witted 
enough  to  see  "  (to  return  the  compliment  which  he  pays  the 
Anarchists).  But  what  of  that  ?  It  would  still  be  a  power 
for  preventing  those  invasive  acts  which  the  people  are  practi- 
cally agreed  in  wanting  to  prevent.  If  it  should  attempt  to 
go  beyond  this,  it  would  be  promptly  checked  by  a  diminution 
of  the  supplies.  The  power  to  cut  off  the  supplies  is  the 
most  effective  weapon  against  tyranny.     To  say,  as  Mr.  Levy 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE. 


43 


does,  that  "  taxation  must  be  coextensive  with  government " 
is  not  the  proper  way  to  put  it.  It  is  government  (or,  rather, 
the  State)  that  must  and  will  be  coextensive  with  taxation. 
When  compulsory  taxation  is  abolished,  there  will  be  no  State, 
and  the  defensive  institution  that  will  succeed  it  will  be 
steadily  deterred  from  becoming  an  invasive  institution 
through  fear  that  the  voluntary  contributions  will  fall  off. 
This  constant  motive  for  a  voluntary  defensive  institution  to 
keep  itself  trimmed  down  to  the  popular  demand  is  itself  the 
best  possible  safeguard  against  the  bugbear  of  multitudinous 
rival  political  agencies  which  seems  to  haunt  Mr.  Levy.  He 
says  that  the  voluntary  taxationists  are  victims  of  an  illusion. 
The  charge  might  be  made  against  himself  with  much  more 
reason. 

My  chief  interest  in  Mr.  Levy's  article,  however,  is  excited 
by  his  valid  criticism  of  those  Individualists  who  accept  vol- 
untary taxation,  but  stop  short,  or  think  they  stop  short,  of 
Anarchism,  and  I  shall  wait  with  much  curiosity  to  see  what 
Mr.  Greevz  Fisher,  and  especially  Mr.  Auberon  Herbert,  will 
have  to  say  in  reply. 

On  the  whole,  Anarchists  have  more  reason  to  be  grateful  to 
Mr.  Levy  for  his  article  than  to  complain  of  it.  It  is  at  least 
an  appeal  for  intellectual  consistency  on  this  subject,  and  as 
such  it  renders  unquestionable  service  to  the  cause  of  plumb- 
line  Anarchism. 


9 

RESISTANCE  TO  TAXATION. 

{Liberty,  March  26,  1887.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

I  have  lately  been  involved  in  several  discussions  leading  out  of  your 
refusal  to  pay  your  poll-tax,  and  I  would  like  to  get  from  you  your 
reasons,  so  far  as  they  are  public  property,  for  that  action.  It  seems  to 
me  that  any  good  object  could  have  been  better  and  more  easily  obtained 
by  compromising  with  the  law,  except  the  object  of  propagandism,  and  that 
in  attaining  that  object  you  were  going  beyond  the  right  into  paths  where 
you  could  not  bid  any  one  follow  who  was  trying  to  live  square  with  the 
truth,  so  far  as  we  may  know  it. 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  owe  our  taxes  to  the  State,  whether  we  believe 
in  it  or  not,  so  long  as  we  remain  within  its  borders,  for  the  benefits 
which  we  willingly  or  unwillingly  derive  from  it;  that  the  only  right  course 
to  be  pursued  is  to  leave  any  State  whose  laws  we  can  no  longer  obey 
without  violence  to  our  own  reason,  and,  if  necessary,  people  a  desert 


44  INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 

island  for  ourselves  ;  for  in  staying  in  it  and  refusing  to  obey  its  authority 
we  are  denying  the  right  of  others  to  combine  on  any  system  which  they 
may  deem  right,  and  in  trying  to  compel  them  to  give  up  their  contract 
we  are  as  far  from  right  as  they  in  trying  to  compel  us  to  pay  the  taxes 
in  which  we  do  not  believe.  .  ' 

I  think  that  you  neglect  the  grand  race  experience  which  has  given  us 
our  present  governments  when  you  wage  war  upon  them  all,  and  that  a 
compromise  with  existing  circumstances  is  as  much  a  part  of  the  right  as 
following  our  own  reason,  for  the  existent  is  the  induction  of  the  race  and 
so  long  as  our  individual  reasons  are  not  all  concordant  it  is  entitled  to  its 
share  of  consideration,  and  those  who  leave  it  outdo,  in  so  far,  wrong. 

Even  granting  strict  individualism  to  be  the  ultimate  goal  of  the  race 
development,  still  you  seem  to  me  positively  on  a  false  path  when  you  at- 
tempt-as your  emphatic  denial  of  all  authority  of  existmg  government 
implies-to  violently  substitute  the  end  of  development  for  its  beginning 
I  think  that  these  are  my  main  points  of  objection,  and  hope  that  >ou 
will  pardon  my  impertinence  in  addressing  you,  which  did  not  come  from 
anv  idle  argumentative  curiosity,  but  a  genuine  search  for  the  truth,  it  it 
exists-  and  so  I  ventured  to  address  you,  as  you  by  your  action  seem  to 
me  to  accept  the  burden  of  proof  in  your  contest  with  the  existent 

Yours  truly,  Frederic  A.  C.  Ferrine. 

7  Atlantic  St.,  Newark,  N.  J.,  November  n,  1886. 

Mr  Perrine's  criticism  is  an  entirely  pertinent  one,  and  of 
the  sort  that  I  like  to  answer,  though  in  this  instance  circum- 
stances have  delayed  the  appearance  of  his  letter.     lhe  gist 
of  his  position-in  fact,  the  whole  of  his  argument— is  con- 
tained in  his  second  paragraph,  and  is  based  on  the  assump- 
tion that  the  State  is  precisely  the  thing  which  the  Anarchists 
sav  it  is  not,--namely,  a  voluntary  association  of  contracting 
individuals.    Were  it  really  such,  I  should  have  no  quarrel 
with  it,  and  I  should  admit  the  truth  of  Mr.  Pemne  s  re- 
marks    For  certainly  such  voluntary  association  would  be 
entitled  to  enforce  whatever  regulations  the  contracting  parties 
might  agree  upon  within  the  limits  of  whatever  territory,  or 
divisions  of  territory,  had  been  brought  into  the  association  by 
these  parties  as  individual  occupiers  thereof,  and  no  non- 
contracting  party  would  W  a  right  to  enter  or  remain  m 
this  domain  except  upon  such  terms  as  the  association  might 
impose     But  if,  somewhere  between  these  divisions  of  terri- 
tory had  lived,  prior  to  the  formation  of  the  association,  some 
individual  on  his  homestead,  who  for  any  reason,  wise  or 
foolish,  had  declined  to  join  in  forming  the  association  the 
contracting  parties  would  have  had  no  right  to  evict  him,  com- 
pel him  to  join,  make  him  pay  for  any  incidental  benefits  that 
he  might  derive  from  proximity  to  their  association  • or  restrict 
him  in  the  exercise  of  any  previously-enjoyed  right  to  prevent 
him  from  reaping  these  benefits.    Now,  voluntary  association 
necessarily  involving  the  right  of  secession,  any  seceding  mem- 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE. 


45 


ber  would  naturally  fall  back  into  the  position  and  upon  the 
rights  of  the  individual  above  described,  who  refused  to  join 
at  all.  So  much,  then,  for  the  attitude  of  the  individual 
toward  any  voluntary  association  surrounding  him,  his  support 
thereof  evidently  depending  upon  his  approval  or  disapproval 
of  its  objects,  his  view  of  its  efficiency  in  attaining  them,  and 
his  estimate  of  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  involved  in 
joining,  seceding,  or  abstaining.  But  no  individual  to-day 
finds  himself  under  any  such  circumstances.  The  States  in 
the  midst  of  which  he  lives  cover  all  the  ground  there  is,  af- 
fording him  no  escape,  and  are  not  voluntary  associations,  but 
gigantic  usurpations.  There  is  not  one  of  them  which  did 
not  result  from  the  agreement  of  a  larger  or  smaller  number 
of  individuals,  inspired  sometimes  no  doubt  by  kindly,  but 
oftener  by  malevolent,  designs,  to  declare  all  the  territory  and 
persons  within  certain  boundaries  a  nation  which  every  one 
of  these  persons  must  support,  and  to  whose  will,  expressed 
through  its  sovereign  legislators  and  administrators  no  matter 
how  chosen,  every  one  of  them  must  submit.  Such  an  insti- 
tution is  sheer  tyranny,  and  has  no  rights  which  any  individual 
is  bound  to  respect;  on  the  contrary,  every  individual  who 
understands  his  rights  and  values  his  liberties  will  do  his  best 
to  overthrow  it.  I  think  it  must  now  be  plain  to  Mr. 
Perrine  why  I  do  not  feel  bound  either  to  pay  taxes  or  to  em- 
igrate. Whether  I  will  pay  them  or  not  is  another  question, — 
one  of  expediency.  My  object  in  refusing  has  been,  as  Mr. 
Perrine  suggests,  propagandism,  and  in  the  receipt  of  Air. 
Perrine's  letter  I  find  evidence  of  the  adaptation  of  this  policy 
to  that  end.  Propagandism  is  the  only  motive  that  I  can  urge 
for  isolated  individual  resistance  to  taxation.  But  out  of 
propagandism  by  this  and  many  other  methods  I  expect  there 
ultimately  will  develop  the  organization  of  a  determined  body 
of  men  and  women  who  will,  effectively,  though  passively,  re- 
sist taxation,  not  simply  for  propagandism,  but  to  directly 
cripple  their  oppressors.  This  is  the  extent  of  the  only  "  vio- 
lent substitution  of  end  for  beginning"  which  T  can  plead 
guilty  of  advocating,  and,  if  the  end  can  be  M  better  and  more 
easily  obtained  "  in  any  other  way,  I  should  like  to  have  it 
pointed  out.  The  "grand  race  experience"  which  Mr.  Per- 
rine thinks  I  neglect  is  a  very  imposing  phrase,  on  hearing 
which  one  is  moved  to  lie  down  in  prostrate  submission  ;  but 
whoever  first  chances  to  take  a  closer  look  will  see  that  it  is 
but  one  of  those  spooks  of  which  Tak  Kak*  tells  us.  Nearly 

*A  writer  for  Liberty  who  has  devoted  much  space  to  exposition  of  the 
philosophy  of  Egoism. 


46 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


all  the  evils  with  which  mankind  was  ever  afflicted  were  prod- 
ucts of  this  "  grand  race  experience,"  and  I  am  not  aware 
that  any  were  ever  abolished  by  showing  it  any  unnecessary 
reverence.  We  will  bow  to  it  when  we  must  ;  we  will  "com- 
promise with  existing  circumstances  "  when  we  have  to  ;  but 
at  all  other  times  we  will  follow  our  reason  and  the  plumb-line. 


A  PUPPET  FOR  A  GOD. 

[Liberty,  April  9,  1887.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty : 

Please  accept  my  thanks  for  your  candid  answer  to  my  letter  of  No- 
vember 11,  1886.  It  contains,  however,  some  points  which  do  not  seem 
to  me  conclusive.  The  first  position  to  which  I  object  is  your  statement 
that  voluntary  association  necessarily  involves  the  right  of  secession  ; 
hereby  you  deny  the  right  cf  any  people  to  combine  on  a  constitution 
which  denies  that  right  of  secession,  and  in  doing  so  attempt  to  force 
upon  them  your  own  idea  of  right.  You  assume  the  case  of  a  new  State 
attempting  to  impose  its  laws  upon  a  former  settler  in  the  country,  and 
say  that  they  have  no  right  to  do  so  ;  I  agree  with  you,  but  have  I  not  as 
much  reason  for  assuming  a  State  including  no  previous  settler's  home- 
stead and  voluntarily  agreeing  to  waive  all  right  of  secession  from  the 
vote  of  the  majority  ?  In  any  such  State  I  claim,  then,  that  any  member 
becoming  an  Anarchist,  or  holding  any  views  differing  from  those  of  the 
general  body,  is  only  right  in  applying  them  within  the  laws  of  the  ma- 
jority. 

Such  seems  to  me  to  represent  the  condition  of  these  United  States  ; 
there  is  very  little,  if  any,  record  of  any  man  denying  the  right  of  the 
majority  at  their  foundation,  and,  in  the  absence  of  any  such  denial,  we 
are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  association  and  the  passage  of  the 
majority  rules  were  voluntary,  and,  as  I  said  before,  resistance  to  their 
government  beyond  the  legal  means  by  an  inhabitant  is  practically  deny- 
ing the  right  of  the  others  to  waive  the  right  of  secession  on  entering 
into  a  contract.  The  denial  of  any  such  right  seems  to  me  to  be  irra- 
tional. 

Of  course,  none  of  this  applies  to  the  Indians,  who  never  did  and 
never  will  come  into  the  government.  I  do  not,  however,  think  that 
their  case  invalidates  the  argument. 

In  the  second  place,  I  object  to  your  quotation  of  my  phrase,  "  grand 
race  experience,"  as  grandiloquent.  If  we  have  anything  grand,  it  is 
this  "  race  experience  "  ;  denying  its  grandeur,  you  either  deny  the  gran- 
deur and  dignity  of  Man,  or  else,  as  you  seem  to  do,  you  look  back 
fondly  to  some  past  happy  state  in  some  "  Happy  Valley  "  of  Eden  from 
which  man  has  been  falling  till  now  he  can  say,  "All  the  evils  with  which 
mankind  was  ever  afflicted  were  products  of  this  '  grand  race  experi- 
ence.' "  It  does  indeed  seem  to  me  to  be  to  you  a  "  spook  "  and  more  : 
an  ogre,  The  Devil  going  about  devouring  all  good,  rather  than,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  the  manifestation  of  Divinity, — the  divinity  of  Man,  which 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  47 


has  produced,  not  alone  the  evil  in  us,  but  has  produced  us  as  we  are, 
with  all  our  good  and  ill  combined. 

It  is  the  force  which  is  as  surely  leading  us  up  to  Anarchy  and  beyond 
as  it  has  led  us  from  the  star-dust  into  manhood.  It  is  the  personifica- 
tion of  our  evolution,  and,  while  no  man  may  either  advance  or  retard 
that  evolution  to  any  very  considerable  extent,  still  it  seems  to  me  that 
much  more  can  be  accomplished  by  acting  with  it  than  across  its  path, 
even  though  we  may  seem  to  be  steering  straight  towards  the  harbor  for 
which  it  is  tacking. 

The  other  night  I  attended  a  meeting  of  the  Commonwealth  Club  of 
New  York  City,  and  there  listened  to  the  reading  and  discussion  of  a 
paper  by  Mr.  Bishop,  of  the  Post,  on  the  effects  of  bribery  at  elections, 
concerning  the  amount  of  which  Mr.  Wm.  M.  Ivins  had  given  so  many 
startling  figures  at  an  earlier  meeting.  Mr.  Bishop  recited  the  long  list 
of  party  leaders,  and  characterized  them  in  their  professions  and  prac- 
tices. 

The  whole  unsavory  story,  only  too  familiar  to  us  all,  did  not  daunt 
him  in  his  belief  that  the  government  is  a  part  of  the  true  curve  of  de- 
velopment, but  only  incited  the  proposal  of  a  remedy,  which  consisted  in 
substituting  the  State  for  the  party  machine  in  the  distribution  of  the 
ballots  and  in  the  enactment  of  more  stringent  bribery  and  undue  influ- 
ence acts, — in  fact,  a  series  of  laws  similar  to  those  English  laws  of  Sir 
Henry  James,  which  are  in  force  there  at  the  present  time  and  which 
seem  to  act  to  a  certain  extent  beneficially. 

In  closing,  after  recognizing  the  difficulty  in  passing  any  reform 
measures,  he  quoted  Gladstone's  memorable  appeal  to  the  future  for  his 
vindication,  claiming  a  common  cause  with  all  reformers  and  with  Time, 
which  is  fighting  for  them. 

The  reading  of  this  paper  was  followed  by  an  address  from  Mr.  Simon 
Sterne,  advocating  the  minority  representation  of  Mill,  and  one  by  Mr. 
Turner,  who  appealed  for  an  open  ballot. 

Immediately  Mr.  Ivins  rose,  and,  after  showing  that  no  open  ballot 
could  be  free,  as  even  asking  a  man  for  his  vote  is  a  form  of  coercion, 
proceeded  on  the  lines  of  Mr.  Bishop's  closing  quotation  to  show  that 
the  reform  then  proposed  was  but  a  link  in  the  long  chain  which  is  leading 
us  irresistibly  onward  ;  that  not  in  State  supervision,  or  in  minority  repre- 
sentation, or  in  any  measure  at  present  proposed,  was  there  an  adequate 
solution  of  the  problem,  but  that  they  were  each  logical  steps  in  prog- 
ress,— progress  which  may  end  in  a  State  Socialism  or  in  Anarchy  or 
in  what  not,  but  at  any  rate  in  The  End  which  is  right  and  inevitable. 
We  cannot  any  of  us  turn  far  aside  the  course  of  this  progress,  however 
we  may  act.  We  can  but  put  our  shoulder  to  the  wheel  and  give  a  little 
push  onwards  according  to  our  little  strength.  Except  at  great  epochs, 
the  extremists  diminish  their  effect  by  diminishing  their  leverage  ;  the 
steady,  every-day  workers  who  strive  for  the  right  along  the  existing 
lines  purify  the  moral  tone  of  the  times  and  pave  the  way  for  those  great 
revolutions  when  the  world  seems  to  advance  by  great  bounds  into  the 
future. 

Should  we  not,  then,  strike  hands  with  these  men  of  the  Common- 
wealth Club,  and,  burying  our  differences  of  ultimate  aims,  if  differences 
exist,  work  in  and  for  the  present? 

I  sat  at  that  dinner  with  Republicans  and  Democrats,  Free  Traders  and 
Protectionists,  all  absorbed  with  the  one  idea  of  advancement  and  working 
for  that  idea  with  heart  and  soul.  Their  influence  will  be  felt,  felt  not  only 
now,  but  in  the  future,  even  the  future  of  a  happy  Anarchy;  reaching  out 


43  INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 

after  and  touching  that  state  before  some  of  its  more  uncompromising 

*d  When*  the  days  are  ripe  for  a  revolution,  then  let  there  be  no  compro- 
mise; the  compromise  will  come  in  spite  of  us.  But  to  fly  against  the 
wall  of  an  indolent  public  sentiment  is  folly,  while  each  man,  Anr.rcnist 
or  not  can  do  something  towards  the  purification  of  the  existent  order  ot 
things  or  at  least  should  withhold  the  hand  of  hindrance  from  earnest 
workers  in  that  field.  Frederic  A.  C.  Perrine. 

7  Atlantic  Street,  Newark,  N.  J.,  April  i,  1887. 

When  I  said,  in  my  previous  reply  to  Mr.  Perrine,  that  vol- 
untary association  necessarily  involves  the  right  of  secession, 
I  did  not  deny  the  right  of  any  individuals  to  go  through  the 
form  of  constituting  themselves  an  association  in  which  each 
member  waives  the  right  of  secession.     My  assertion  was 
simply  meant  to  carry  the  idea  that  such  a  constitution,  if  any 
should  be  so  idle  as  to  adopt  it,  would  be  a  mere  form,  which 
every  decent  man  who  was  a  party  to  it  would  hasten  to  vio- 
late and  tread  under  foot  as  soon  as  he  appreciated  the  enor- 
mity of  his  folly.    Contract  is  a  very  serviceable  and  most 
important  tool,  but  its  usefulness  has  its  limits  ;  no  man  can 
employ  it  for  the  abdication  of  his  manhood.    To  indefinitely 
waive  one's  right  of  secession  is  to  make  one's  self  a  slave. 
Now,  no  man  can  make  himself  so  much  a  slave  as  to  forfeit 
the  right  to  issue  his  own  emancipation  proclamation.  Indi- 
viduality and  its  right  of  assertion  are  indestructible  except 
by  death.    Hence  any  signer  of  such  a  constitution  as  that 
supposed  who  should  afterwards  become  an  Anarchist  would 
be  fully  justified  in  the  use  of  any  means  that  would  protect 
him  from  attempts  to  coerce  him  in  the  name  of  that  consti- 
tution.    But  even  if  this  were  not  so  ;  if  men  were  really 
under  obligation  to  keep  impossible  contracts,— there  would 
still  be  no  inference  to  be  drawn  therefrom  regarding  the  rela- 
tions of  the  United  States  to  its  so-called  citizens.    To  assert 
that  the  United  States  constitution  is  similar  to  that  ot  the 
hypothesis  is  an  extremely  wild  remark.    Mr.  Perrine  can 
readily  find  this  out  by  reading  Lysander  Spooner  s  Letter 
to  Grover  Cleveland."    That  masterly  document  will  tell  him 
what  the  United  States  constitution  is  and  just  how  binding 
it  is  on  anybody.    But  if  the  United  States  constitution  were 
a  voluntary  contract  of  the  nature  described  above,  it  would 
still  remain  for  Mr.  Perrine  to  tell  us  why  those  who  failed 
to  repudiate  it  are  bound,  by  such  failure,  to  comply  with  it, 
or  why  the  assent  of  those  who  entered  into  it  is  binding  upon 
people  who  were  then  unborn,  or  what  right  the  contracting 
parties,  if  there  were  any,  had  to  claim  jurisdiction  and  sov- 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE.  49 


ereign  power  over  that  vast  section  of  the  planet  which  has 
since  been  known  as  the  United  States  of  America  and  over 
all  the  persons  contained  therein,  instead  of  over  themselves 
simply  and  such  lands  as  they  personally  occupied  and  used. 
These  are  points  which  he  utterly  ignores.  His  reasoning 
consists  of  independent  propositions  between  which  there  are 
no  logical  links.  Now,  as  to  the  "grand  race  experience." 
It  is  perfectly  true  that,  if  we  have  anything  grand,  it  is  this, 
but  it  is  no  less  true  that,  if  we  have  anything  base,  it  is  this. 
It  is  all  we  have,  and,  being  all,  includes  all,  both  grand  and 
base.  I  do  not  deny  man's  grandeur,  neither  do  I  deny  his 
degradation;  consequently  I  neither  accept  nor  reject  all  that 
he  has  been  and  done.  I  try  to  use  my  reason  for  the  purpose 
of  discrimination,  instead  of  blindly  obeying  any  divinity,  even 
that  of  man.  We  should  not  worship  this  race  experience  by 
imitation  and  repetition,  but  should  strive  to  profit  by  its  mis- 
takes and  avoid  them  in  future.  Far  from  believing  in  any 
Edenic  state,  I  yield  to  no  man  in  my  strict  adherence  to  the 
theory  of  evolution,  but  evolution  is  "  leading  us  up  to  An- 
archy "  simply  because  it  has  already  led  us  in  nearly  every 
other  direction  and  made  a  failure  of  it.  Evolution  like  na- 
ture, of  which  it  is  the  instrument  or  process,  is  extremely 
wasteful  and  short-sighted.  Let  us  not  imitate  its  wastefulness 
or  even  tolerate  it  if  we  can  help  it ;  let  us  rather  use  our 
brains  for  the  guidance  of  evolution  in  the  path  of  economy. 
Evolution  left  to  itself  will  sooner  or  later  eliminate,  every 
other  social  form  and  leave  us  Anarchy.  But  evolution 
guided  will  try  to  discover  the  common  element  in  its  past 
failures,  summarily  reject  everything  having  this  element,  and 
straightway  accept  Anarchy,  which  has  it  not.  Because  we 
are  the  products  of  evolution  we  are  not  therefore  to  be  its 
puppets.  On  the  contrary,  as  our  intelligence  grows,  we  are  to 
be  more  and  more  its  masters.  It  is  just  because  we  let  it 
master  us,  just  because  we  strive  to  act  with  it  rather  than 
across  its  path,  just  because  we  dilly-dally  and  shilly-shally 
and  fritter  away  our  time,  for  instance,  over  secret  ballots, 
open  ballots,  and  the  like,  instead  of  treating  the  whole  matter 
of  the  suffrage  from  the  standpoint  of  principle,  that  we  do  in- 
deed "pave  the  way,"  much  to  our  sorrow,  "for  those  great 
revolutions"  and  "great  epochs"  when  extremists  suddenly 
get  the  upper  hand.  Great  epochs,  indeed  !  Great  disasters 
rather,  which  it  behooves  us  vigilantly  to  avoid.  But  how  ? 
By  being  extremists  now.  If  there  were  more  extremists  in 
evolutionary  periods,  there  would  be  no  revolutionary  periods. 
There  is  no  lesson  more  important  for  mankind  to  learn  than 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


that.  Until  it  is  learned,  Mr.  Perrine  will  talk  in  vain  about 
the  divinity  of  man,  for  every  day  will  make  it  more  patent 
that  his  god  is  but  a  jumping-jack. 


MR.  PERRINE'S  DIFFICULTIES. 

[Liberty,  July  i6,  1887.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

I  suppose  I  should  feel  completely  swamped  by  the  great  waves  of 
satire  which  have  rolled  over  my  head  from  all  directions  but  the  front. 

Still  I  feel  able  to  lift  my  hand,  and  make  the  motion  of  scissors. 

I  have  had  the  fallacy  of  a  part  of  my  argument  so  clearly  pointed  out 
to  me  by  another  than  Liberty  that  I  did  not  think  it  would  be  necessary 
for  its  editor  to  go  so  far  around  my  position  as  to  deny  the  sanctity  of 
contract  in  order  to  refute  me. 

Indeed,  my  only  hope  of  Liberty  now  is  that  it  will  define  some  of  its 
own  positions. 

I  have  heard  a  great  deal  of  "spooks"  and  "  plumb-lines,"  but  I  can- 
not clearly  see  the  reason  that  contract  has  ceased  being  a  "  plumb- 
line  "  and  become  a  "  spook,"  unless  we  have  to  allow  that  much  liberty 
for  an  argument. 

Will  you  please  explain  what  safety  there  may  be  in  an  individualistic 
community  where  it  becomes  each  man's  duty  to  break  all  contracts  as 
soon  as  he  has  become  convinced  that  they  were  made  foolishly  ? 

Again,  it  being  the  duty  of  the  individuals  to  break  contracts  made 
with  each  other,  I  cannot  clearly  see  how  it  becomes  an  act  of  despica- 
ble despotism  for  the  Republic  to  break  contracts  made  with  the  Crow 
Indians,  unless  the  ideal  community  is  that  in  which  we  all  become  des- 
picable despots  and  where  we  amuse  ourselves  by  calling  each  ether 
hard  names. 

Irfdeed,  as  I  have  said  twice  before,  you  seem  to  me  to  deny  to  others 
the  right  to  make  and  carry  out  their  own  contracts  unless  these  con- 
tracts meet  with  your  approval. 

I  am  aware  now  of  my  error  in  assuming  that  trre  authority  of  the 
State  rested  historically  on  any  social  contract,  and  those  points  which 
were  brought  in  in  your  reply  as  secondary  are  the  main  objections  to 
my  position. 

The  true  authority  of  the  State  rests,  as  Hearn  shows  in  his  <£  Aryan 
Household,"  not  on  contract,  but  on  its  development  ;  a  point  at  which 
I  hinted,  but  did  not  clearly  develop. 

However,  I  do  not  feel  warranted  in  entering  with  you  into  any  dis- 
cussion from  that  standpoint  till  I  am  able  to  find  out  more  clearly  what 
Liberty  means  by  development.  In  your  reply  to  me,  you  seem  to  think 
of  it  as  a  sort  of  cut-and-try  process  ;  this  may  be  a  Boston  idea  ab- 
sorbed from  the  "  Monday  Lectures,"  but  I  think  that  it  is  hardly  war- 
ranted by  either  Darwin  or  Spencer. 

I  tried  in  both  of  my  letters  to  insist  on  the  existence  of  a  general  line 
of  development  which  is  almost  outside  the  power  of  individuals,  and 
which  is  optimistic.    By  its  being  "optimistic"!  mean  that,  on  th$ 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE. 


principle  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  our  present  condition  is  the  best 
that  it  is  possible  for  us  to  have  attained.  You  do  not  deny  man's  divin- 
ity, "neither  do  you  deny  his  degradation  ";  from  what  has  man  been 
degraded  ?  You  do  not  accept  an  Edenic  state  ;  then  what  do  you  mean 
by  "man's  degradation"? 

The  idea  of  development  which  admits  of  a  degradation  and  which 
expects  Liberty's  followers  to  arrest  the  "wasteful  process"  which  has 
already  made  trial  of  everything  else,  and  is  now  in  despair  about  to 
make  the  experiment  of  Anarchy  is  something  so  new  to  me  that  I  must 
ask  for  a  more  complete  exposition  of  the  system. 

Frederic  A.  C.  Perrine. 

Newark,  N.  J. 

Mr.  Perrine  should  read  more  carefully.  I  have  never  said 
that  it  is  "  each  man's  duty  to  break  all  contracts  as  soon  as 
he  has  become  convinced  that  they  were  made  foolishly." 
What  I  said  was  that,  if  a  man  should  sign  a  contract  to  part 
with  his  liberty  forever,  he  would  violate  it  as  soon  as  he  saw 
the  enormity  of  his  folly.  Because  I  believe  that  some  prom- 
ises are  better  broken  than  kept,  it  does  not  follow  that  I  think 
it  wise  always  to  break  a  foolish  promise.  On  the  contrary,  I 
deem  the  keeping  of  promises  such  an  important  matter  that 
only  in  the  extremest  cases  would  I  approve  their  violation. 
It  is  of  such  vital  consequence  t.:  at  associates  should  be  able 
to  rely  upon  each  other  that  it  is  better  never  to  do  anything 
to  weaken  this  confidence  except  when  it  can  be  maintained 
only  at  the  expense  of  some  consideration  of  even  greater  im- 
portance. I  mean  by  evolution  just  what  Darwin  means  by  it, 
— namely,  the  process  of  selection  by  which,  out  of  all  the 
variations  that  occur  from  any  cause  whatever,  only  those  are 
preserved  which  are  best  adapted  to  the  environment.  Inas- 
much as  the  variations  that  perish  vastly  outnumber  those 
that  survive,  this  process  is  extremely  wasteful,  but  human  in- 
telligence can  greatly  lessen  the  waste.  I  am  perfectly  willing 
to  admit  its  optimism,  if  by  optimism  is  meant  the  doctrine 
that  everything  is  for  the  best  under  the  circumstances.  Opti- 
mism so  defined  is  nothing  more  than  the  doctrine  of  necessity. 
As  to  the  word  "  degradation,"  evidently  Mr.  Perrine  is  una- 
ware of  all  its  meanings.  By  its  derivation  it  implies  descent 
from  something  higher,  but  it  is  also  used  by  the  best  English 
writers  to  express  a  low  condition  regardless  of  what  preceded 
it.    It  was  in  the  latter  sense  that  I  used  it. 


5* 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


WHERE  W£  STAND. 

{Liberty,  August  19,  1882.] 

Mr.  B.  W.  Ball  writes  the  best  articles  that  appear  in  the 
"  Index,"  which  is  not  saying  much,  and  among  the  best  that 
appear  in  any  of  the  weeklies,  which  is  saying  a  good  deal. 
We  were  the  more  gratified,  therefore,  to  find  him  treating  in 
a  recent  number  the  incipient,  but  increasing,  opposition  to  the 
existence  of  the  State.  He  at  least  is  clear-sighted  enough 
not  to  underrate  the  importance  of  the  advent  into  social  and 
political  agitation  of  so  straightforward,  consistent,  unterrified, 
determined,  and,  withal,  philosophically  rooted  a  factor  as 
modern  Anarchism,  although  his  editorial  chief,  Mr.  Under- 
wood, declares  that  the  issue  which  the  Anarchists  present 
"  admits  of  no  discussion." 

But  even  Mr.  Ball  shows,  by  his  article  on  "Anti-State  The- 
orists," that,  despite  his  promptness  to  discover  and  be  im- 
pressed by  the  appearance  of  this  new  movement,  he  has  as  yet 
studied  it  too  superficially  to  know  anything  of  the  groundwork 
of  the  thought  which  produced,  animates,  and  guides  it.  In- 
deed this  first  shot  of  his  flies  so  wide  of  the  mark  that  cer- 
tain incidental  phrases  indicative  of  the  object  of  his  aim 
were  needed  to  reassure  us  that  Anarchism  really  was  his  target. 
In  a  word,  he  has  opened  fire  on  the  Anarchists  without  in- 
quiring where  we  stand. 

Where,  then,  does  he  suppose  us  to  stand  ?  His  central 
argument  against  us,  stated  briefly,  is  this  :  Where  crime  exists, 
force  must  exist  to  repress  it.  Who  denies  it  ?  Certainly  not 
Liberty;  certainly  not  the  Anarchists.  Anarchism  is  not  a 
revival  of  non-resistance,  although  there  may  be  non-resistants 
in  its  ranks.  The  direction  of  Mr.  Ball's  attack  implies  that 
we  would  let  robbery,  rape,  and  murder  make  havoc  in  the 
community  without  lifting  a  finger  to  stay  their  brutal,  bloody 
work.  On  the  contrary,  we  are  the  sternest  enemies  of  inva- 
sion of  person  and  property,  and,  although  chiefly  busy  in 
destroying  the  causes  thereof,  have  no  scruples  against  such 
heroic  treatment  of  its  immediate  manifestations  as  circum- 
stances and  wisdom  may  dictate.  It  is  true  that  we  look  for- 
ward to  the  ultimate  disappearance  of  the  necessity  of  force 
even  for  the  purpose  of  repressing  crime,  but  this,  though  in- 
volved in  it  as  a  necessary  result,  is  by  no  means  a  necessary 
condition  of  the  abolition  of  the  State. 

In  opposing  the  State,  therefore,  we  do  not  deny  Mr.  Ball's 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE. 


53 


proposition,  but  distinctly  affirm  and  emphasize  it.  We  make 
war  upon  the  State  as  the  chief  invader  of  person  and  prop- 
erty, as  the  cause  of  substantially  all  the  crime  and  misery 
that  exist,  as  itself  the  most  gigantic  criminal  extant.  It  man- 
ufactures criminals  much  faster  than  it  punishes  them.  It 
exists  to  create  and  sustain  the  privileges  which  produce  eco- 
nomic and  social  chaos.  It  is  the  sole  support  of  the  monop- 
olies which  concentrate  wealth  and  learning  in  the  hands  of 
a  few  and  disperse  poverty  and  ignorance  among  the  masses, 
to  the  increase  of  which  inequality  the  increase  of  crime  is 
directly  proportional.  It  protects  a  minority  in  plundering 
the  majority  by  methods  too  subtle  to  be  understood  by  the 
victims,  and  then  punishes  such  unruly  members  of  the  major- 
ity as  attempt  to  plunder  others  by  methods  too  simple  and 
straightforward  to  be  recognized  by  the  State  as  legitimate, 
crowning  its  outrages  by  deluding  scholars  and  philosophers 
of  Mr.  Ball's  stamp  into  pleading,  as  an  excuse  for  its  infa- 
mous existence,  the  necessity  of  repressing  the  crime  which 
it  steadily  creates. 

Mr.  Ball, — to  his  honor  be  it  said, — during  anti-slavery  days, 
was  a  steadfast  abolitionist.  He  earnestly  desired  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery.  Doubtless  he  remembers  how  often  he  was 
met  with  the  argument  that  slavery  was  necessary  to  keep  the 
unlettered  blacks  out  of  mischief,  and  that  it  would  be  unsafe 
to  give  freedom  to  such  a  mass  of  ignorance.  Mr.  Ball  in  those 
days  saw  through  the  sophistry  of  such  reasoning,  and  knew 
that  those  who  urged  it  did  so  to  give  some  color  of  moral  jus- 
tification to  their  conduct  in  living  in  luxury  on  the  enforced 
toil  of  slaves.  He  probably  was  wont  to  answer  them  some- 
thing after  this  fashion^  "  It  is  the  institution  of  slavery  that 
keeps  the  blacks  in  ignorance,  and  to  justify  slavery  on  the 
ground  of  their  ignorance  is  to  reason  in  a  circle  and  beg  the 
very  question  at  issue." 

To-day  Mr.  Ball — again  to  his  honor  be  it  said — is  a  relig- 
ious abolitionist.  He  earnestly  desires  the  abolition,  or  at  least 
the  disappearance,  of  the  Church.  How  frequently  he  must 
meet  or  hear  of  priests  who,  while  willing  to  privately  admit 
that  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  are  a  bundle  of  delusions,  ar- 
gue that  the  Church  is  necessary  to  keep  the  superstition-ridden 
masses  in  order,  and  that  their  release  from  the  mental  subjec- 
tion in  which  it  holds  them  would  be  equivalent  to  their  pre- 
cipitation into  unbridled  dissipation,  libertinism,  and  ultimate 
ruin.  Mr.  Ball  sees  clearly  through  the  fallacy  of  all  such  logic, 
and  knows  that  those  who  use  it  do  so  to  gain  a  moral  footing 
on  which  to  stand  while  collecting  their  fees  from  the  poor 


54 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


fools  who  know  no  better  than  to  pay  them.  We  can  fancy 
him  replying  with  pardonable  indignation:  "Cunning  knaves, 
you  know  very  well  that  it  is  your  Church  that  saturates  the 
people  with  superstition,  and  that  to  justify  its  existence  on 
the  ground  of  their  superstition  is  to  put  the  cart  before  the 
horse  and  assume  the  very  point  in  dispute." 

Now,  we  Anarchists  are  political  abolitionists.  We  earnestly 
desire  the  abolition  of  the  State.  Our  position  on  this  ques- 
tion is  parallel  in  most  respects  to  those  of  the  Church  aboli- 
tionists and  the  slavery  abolitionists.  But  in  this  case  Mr. 
Ball — to  his  disgrace  be  it  said — takes  the  side  of  the  tyrants 
against  the  abolitionists,  and  raises  the  cry  so  frequently  raised 
against  him:  The  State  is  necessary  to  keep  thieves  and  mur- 
derers in  subjection,  and,  were  it  not  for  the  State,  we  should 
all  be  garroted  in  the  streets  and  have  our  throats  cut  in  our 
beds.  As  Mr.  Ball  saw  through  the  sophistry  of  his  opponents, 
so  we  see  through  his,  precisely  similar  to  theirs,  though  we 
know  that  not  he,  but  the  capitalists  use  it  to  blind  the  people 
to  the  real  object  of  the  institution  by  which  they  are  able  to 
extort  from  labor  the  bulk  of  its  products.  We  answer  him  as 
he  did  them,  and  in  no  very  patient  mood:  Can  you  not  see 
that  it  is  the  State  that  creates  the  conditions  which  give  birth 
to  thieves  and  murderers,  and  that  to  justify  its  existence  on 
the  ground  of  the  prevalence  of  theft  and  murder  is  a  logical 
process  every  whit  as  absurd  as  those  used  to  defeat  your 
efforts  to  abolish  slavery  and  the  Church  ? 

Once  for  all,  then,  we  are  not  opposed  to  the  punishment  of 
thieves  and  murderers;  we  are  opposed  to  their  manufacture. 
Right  here  Mr.  Ball  must  attack  us,  or  not  at  all.  When  next 
he  writes  on  Anarchism,  let  him  answer  these  questions  : 

Are  not  the  laboring  classes  deprived  of  their  earnings  by 
usury  in  its  three  forms, — interest,  rent,  and  profit? 

Is  not  such  deprivation  the  principal  cause  of  poverty  ? 

Is  not  poverty,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  principal  cause  of 
illegal  crime? 

Is  not  usury  dependent  upon  monopoly,  and  especially  upon 
the  land  and  money  monopolies  ? 

Could  these  monopolies  exist  without  the  State  at  their  back  ? 

Does  not  by  far  the  larger  part  of  the  work  of  the  State  con- 
sist in  establishing  and  sustaining  these  monopolies  and  other 
results  of  special  legislation  ? 

Would  not  the  abolition  of  these  invasive  functions  of  the 
State  lead  gradually  to  the  disappearance  of  crime  ? 

If  so,  would  not  the  disappearance  of  crime  render  the  pro- 
tective functions  of  the  State  superfluous  ? 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE. 


55 


In  that  case,  would  not  the  State  have  been  entirely 
abolished  ?  * 

Would  not  this  be  the  realization  of  Anarchy  and  the  ful- 
filment of  Proudhon's  prophecy  of  "  the  dissolution  of  govern- 
ment in  the  economic  organism  "? 

To  each  of  these  questions  we  answer:  Yes.  That  answer 
constitutes  the  ground  on  which  we  stand  and  from  which  we 
refuse  to  be  drawn  away.  We  invite  Mr.  Ball  to  meet  us  on  it, 
and  whip  us  if  he  can. 


TU-WHIT  !  TU-WHOO! 

[Liberty,  October  24,  1885.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty: 
Will  you  give  direct  and  explicit  answers  to  the  following  questions  ? 

I  certainly  will,  wherever  the  questions  are  direct  and 
explicit. 

Does  Anarchism  recognize  the  right  of  one  individual  or  any  number 
of  individuals  to  determine  what  course  of  action  is  just  or  unjust  for 
others  ? 

Yes,  if  by  the  word  unjust  is  meant  invasive;  otherwise,  no. 
Anarchism  recognizes  the  right  of  one  individual  or  any  num- 
ber of  individuals  to  determine  that  no  man  shall  invade  the 
equal  liberty  of  his  fellow;  beyond  this  it  recognizes  no  right 
of  control  over  individual  conduct. 

Does  it  recognize  the  right  to  restrain  or  control  their  actions,  what- 
ever they  may  be  ? 

See  previous  answer. 

Does  it  recognize  the  right  to  arrest,  try,  convict,  and  punish  for 
wrong  doing  ? 

Yes,  if  by  the  words  wrong  doing  is  meant  invasion;  other- 
wise, no. 

Does  it  believe  in  jury  trial  ? 

Anarchism,  as  such,  neither  believes  nor  disbelieves  in  jury 


*  In  this  series  of  questions  the  word  "  State  "  is  used  in  a  sense  inclu- 
sive of  voluntary  protective  associations,  whereas  in  all  other  parts  of 
this  volume  it  is  used  in  a  sense  exclusive  thereof.  Attention  is  called 
to  this  inconsistency  in  terminology,  in  order  to  prevent  misunderstand- 
ing. 


56 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


trial;  it  is  a  matter  of  expediency.    For  myself,  I  am  inclined 

to  favor  it. 

If  so,  how  is  the  jury  to  be  selected  ? 

Another  matter  of  expediency.  Speaking  for  myself  again, 
I  think  the  jury  should  be  selected  by  drawing  twelve  names 
by  lot  from  a  wheel  containing  the  names  of  all  the  citizens 
in  the  community, — jury  service,  of  course,  not  to  be  compul- 
sory, though  it  may  rightfully  be  made,  if  it  should  seem  best, 
a  condition  of  membership  in  a  voluntary  association. 

Does  it  propose  prisons,  or  other  places  of  confinement,  for  such  as 
prove  unsafe  ? 

Another  matter  of  expediency.  If  it  can  find  no  better  in- 
strument of  resistance  to  invasion,  Anarchism  will  use  prisons. 

Does  it  propose  taxation  to  support  the  tribunals  of  justice,  and  these 
places  of  confinement  and  restraint  ? 

Anarchism  proposes  to  deprive  no  individual  of  his  property, 
or  any  portion  of  it,  without  his  consent,  unless  the  individual 
is  an  invader,  in  which  case  Anarchism  will  take  enough  of  his 
property  from  him  to  repair  the  damage  done  by  his  invasion. 
Contribution  to  the  support  of  certain  things  may,  like  jury 
service,  rightfully  be  made  a  condition  of  membership  in  a 
voluntary  association. 

How  is  justice  to  be  determined  in  a  given  case  ? 

This  question  not  being  explicit,  I  cannot  answer  it  explic- 
itly. I  can  only  say  that  justice  is  to  be  determined  on  the 
principle  of  the  equal  liberty  of  all,  and  by  such  mechanism  as 
may  prove  best  fitted  to  secure  its  object. 

Will  Anarchists  wait  till  all  who  know  anything  about  it  are  agreed  ? 

This  question  is  grammatically  defective.  It  is  not  clear 
what  "  it  "  refers  to.  It  may  refer  to  justice  in  the  previous 
question,  or  it  may  refer  to  Anarchism,  or  it  may  refer  to  some 
conception  hidden  in  the  recesses  of  the  writer's  brain.  At  a 
venture  I  will  make  this  assertion,  hoping  it  may  hit  the  mark. 
When  Anarchists  are  agreed  in  numbers  sufficient  to  enable 
them  to  accomplish  whatever  special  work  lies  before  them, 
they  will  probably  go  about  it. 

Will  they  take  the  majority  rule  ?  Or  will  they  sustain  a  small  fraction 
in  their  findings  ? 

Inasmuch  as  Anarchistic  associations  recognize  the  right  of 
secession,  they  may  utilize  the  ballot,  if  they  see  fit  to  do  so. 
If  the  question  decided  by  ballot  is  so  vital  that  the  minority 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE. 


57 


thinks  it  more  important  to  carry  out  its  own  views  than  to 
preserve  common  action,  the  minority  can  withdraw.  In  no 
case  can  a  minority,  however  small,  be  governed  against  its 
consent. 

Does  Anarchism  mean  the  observance  and  enforcement  of  natural  law, 
so  far  as  can  be  discovered,  or  does  it  mean  the  opposite  or  something 
else? 

Anarchism  does  mean  exactly  the  observance  and  enforce- 
ment of  the  natural  law  of  Liberty,  and  it  does  not  mean  the 
opposite  or  anything  else. 

If  it  means  that  all  such  as  do  not  conform  to  the  natural  law,  as  under- 
stood by  th£  masses,  shall  be  made  to  suffer  through  the  machinery  of 
organized  authority,  no  matter  under  what  name  it  goes,  it  is  human 
government  as  really  as  anything  we  now  have. 

Anarchism  knows  nothing  about  "  natural  law  as  understood 
by  the  masses."  It  means  the  observance  and  enforcement  by 
each  individual  of  the  natural  law  of  Liberty  as  understood 
by  himself.  When  a  number  of  individuals  who  understand 
this  natural  law  to  mean  the  equal  liberty  of  all  organize  on  a 
voluntary  basis  to  resist  the  invasion  of  this  liberty,  they  form  a 
very  different  thing  from  any  human  government  we  now  have. 
They  do  not  form  a  government  at  all ;  they  organize  a  rebellion 
against  government.  For  government  is  invasion,  and  nothing 
else  ;  and  resistance  to  invasion  is  the  antithesis  of  govern- 
ment. All  the  organized  governments  of  to  day  are  such  be- 
cause they  are  invasive.  In  the  first  place,  all  their  acts  are 
indirectly  invasive,  because  dependent  upon  the  primary  in- 
vasion called  taxation  ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  by  far  the 
greater  number  of  their  acts  are  directly  invasive,  because  di- 
rected, not  to  the  restraint  of  invaders,  but  to  the  denial  of 
freedom  to  the  people  in  their  industrial,  commercial,  social, 
domestic,  and  individual  lives.  No  man  with  brains  in  his  head 
can  honestly  say  that  such  institutions  are  identical  in  their 
nature  with  voluntary  associations,  supported  by  voluntary 
contributions,  which  confine  themselves  to  resisting  invasion. 

If  it  means  that  the  undeveloped  and  vicious  shall  not  be  interfered 
with,  it  means  that  the  world  shall  suffer  all  the  disorder  and  crime  that 
depravity  unhindered  can  consummate. 

S.  Blodgett. 

Grahamville,  Florida. 

I  hoDe  that  my  readers  will  take  in  Mr.  Blodgett's  final  as- 
sertion in  all  its  length  and  breadth  and  depth.  Just  see  what 
it  says.  It  says  that  penal  institutions  are  the  only  promoters 
of  virtue.    Education  goes  for  nothing  ;  example  goes  for 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


nothing  ;  public  opinion  goes  for  nothing  ;  social  ostracism 
goes  for  nothing  ;  freedom  goes  for  nothing  ;  competition 
goes  for  nothing  ;  increase  of  material  welfare  goes  for  nothing; 
decrease  of  temptation  goes  for  nothing  ;  health  goes  for 
nothing  ;  approximate  equality  of  conditions  goes  for  nothing: 
all  these  are  utterly  powerless  as  preventives  or  curatives  of 
immorality.  The  only  forces  on  earth  that  tend  to  develop 
the  undeveloped  and  to  make  the  vicious  virtuous  are  our 
judges,  our  jails,  and  our  gibbets.  Mr.  Blodgett,  I  believe, 
repudiates  the  Christian  doctrine  that  hell  is  the  only  safeguard 
of  religious  morality,  but  he  re-creates  it  by  affirming  that  a 
hell  upon  earth  is  the  only  safeguard  of  natural  morality. 

Why  do  Mr.  Blodgett  and  all  those  who  agree  with  him  so 
persistently  disregard  the  constructive  side  of  Anarchism  ?  The 
chief  claim  of  Anarchism  for  its  principles  is  that  the  abolition 
of  legal  monopoly  will  so  transform  social  conditions  that  ignor- 
ance, vice,  and  crime  will  gradually  disappear.  However  often 
this  may  be  stated  and  however  definitely  it  may  be  elabor- 
ated, the  Blodgetts  will  approach  you,  apparently  gravely  un- 
conscious that  any  remark  has  been  made,  and  say  :  If  there 
are  no  policemen,  the  criminal  classes  will  rim  not.  1  ell 
them  that,  when  the  system  of  commercial  cannibalism  which 
rests  on  legal  privilege  disappears,  cutthroats  will  disappear 
with  it,  and  they  will  not  deny  it  or  attempt  to  disprove  it,  but 
they  will  first  blink  at  you  a  moment  with  their  owl-like  eyes, 
and  then  from  out  their  mouths  will  come  the  old,  familiar 
hoot  •  "  Tu-whit  !  tu-whoo  !  If  a  ruffian  tries  to  cut  your  throat, 
what  are  you  going  to  do  about  it  ?    Tu-whit  !  tu-whoo  ! 


RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES  UNDER  ANARCHY. 

[  Liberty,  December  31,  1887.] 

Old  readers  of  this  paper  will  remember  the  appearance  in 
its  columns,  about  two  years  ago,  of  a  series  of  questions  pro- 
pounded by  the  writer  of  the  following  letter  and  accompanied 
by  editorial  answers-  To-day  my  interrogator  questions  me 
further  ;  this  time,  however,  no  longer  as  a  confident  comba- 
tant but  as  an  earnest  inquirer.  As  I  replied  to  him  then  ac- 
cording to  his  pugnacity,  so  I  reply  to  him  now  according  to 
his  friendliness. 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE. 


59 


To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

Will  you  please  insert  the  following  questions  in  your  paper  with  your 
answers  thereto,  and  oblige  an  ethical,  political,  and  humanitarian  student  ? 

1.  Do  you,  as  an  Anarchist,  believe  any  one  human  being  ever  has  the 
right  to  judge  for  another  what  he  ought  or  ought  not  to  do  ? 

The  terms  of  this  question  need  definition.  Assuming, 
however,  the  word  "  right "  to  be  used  in  the  sense  of  the 
limit  which  the  principle  of  equal  liberty  logically  places  upon 
might,  and  the  phrase  "  judge  for  another  "  to  include  not 
only  the  formation  of  judgment  but  the  enforcement  thereof, 
and  the  word  "  ought  "  to  be  equivalent  to  7?iust  or  shall ,  I  an- 
swer :  Yes.  But  the  only  cases  in  which  a  human  being  ever 
has  such  right  over  another  are  those  in  which  the  other's 
doing  or  failure  to  do  involves  an  overstepping  of  the  limit  upon 
might  just  referred  to.  That' is  what  was  meant  when  it  was 
said  in  an  early  number  of  Liberty  that  "  man's  only  duty  is 
to  respect  others' rights."  It  might  well  have  been  added  that 
man's  only  right  over  others  is  to  enforce  that  duty. 

2.  Do  you  believe  any  number  combined  ever  have  such  a  right  ? 

Yes.  The  right  of  any  number  combined  is  whatever  right 
the  individuals  combining  possess  and  voluntarily  delegate  to 
it.  It  follows  from  this,  and  from  the  previous  answer,  that, 
as  individuals  sometimes  have  the  right  in  question,  so  a  num- 
ber combined  may  have  it. 

3.  Do  you  believe  one,  or  any  number,  ever  have  the  right  to  prevent 
another  from  doing  as  he  pleases  ? 

Yes.  This  question  is  answered  by  the  two  previous  an- 
swers taken  together. 

4.  Do  you  believe  it  admissible,  as  an  Anarchist,  to  use  what  influence 
can  be  exerted  without  the  aid  of  brute  force  to  induce  one  to  live  as 
seems  to  you  best  ? 

Please  explain  what  influence,  if  any,  you  think  might  be  employed  in 
harmony  with  Anarchistic  principles. 

Yes.  The  influence  of  reason  ;  the  influence  of  persuasion  ; 
the  influence  of  attraction  ;  the  influence  of  education  ;  the 
influence  of  example  ;  the  influence  of  public  opinion  ;  the  in- 
fluence of  social  ostracism  ;  the  influence  of  unhampered  eco- 
nomic forces  ;  the  influence  of  better  prospects  ;  and  doubtless 
other  influences  which  do  not  now  occur  to  me. 

5.  Do  you  believe  there  is  such  a  thing  as  private  ownership  of  prop- 
erty, viewed  from  an  Anarchistic  standpoint  ?  If  so,  please  give  a  way  or 
rule  to  determine  whether  one  owns  a  thing  or  not. 

Yes.  Anarchism  being  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  prin- 
ciple of  equal  liberty,  property,  in  an  Anarchistic  society,  must 


6o 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


accord  with  this  principle.  The  only  form  of  property  which 
meets  this  condition  is  that  which  secures  each  in  the  posses- 
sion of  his  own  products,  or  of  such  products  of  others  as  he 
may  have  obtained  unconditionally  without  the  use  of  fraud 
or  force,  and  in  the  realization  of  all  titles  to  such  products 
which  he  may  hold  by  virtue  of  free  contract  with  others. 
Possession,  unvitiated  by  fraud  or  force,  of  values  to  which  no 
one  else  holds  a  title  unvitiated  by  fraud  or  force,  and  the  posses- 
sion of  similarly  unvitiated  titles  to  values,  constitute  the  An- 
archistic criterion  of  ownership.  By  fraud  I  do  not  mean 
that  which  is  simply  contrary  to  equity,  but  deceit  and  false 
pretence  in  all  their  forms. 

6.  Is  it  right  to  confine  such  as  injure  others  and  prove  themselves  un- 
safe to  be  at  large  ?  If  so,  is  there  a  way  consistent  with  Anarchy  to 
determine  the  nature  of  the  confinement,  and  how  long  it  shall  continue  ? 

Yes.  Such  confinement  is  sometimes  right  because  it  is 
sometimes  the  wisest  way  of  vindicating  the  right  asserted  in 
the  answer  to  the  first  question.  There  are  many  ways  con- 
sistent with  Anarchy  of  determining  the  nature  and  duration 
of  such  confinement.  Jury  trial,  in  its  original  form,  is  one 
way,  and  in  my  judgment  the  best  way  yet  devised. 

7.  Are  the  good  people  under  obligations  to  feed,  clothe,  and  make 
comfortable  such  as  they  find  it  necessary  to  confine  ? 

No.  In  other  words,  it  is  allowable  to  punish  invaders  by 
torture.  But,  if  the  u  good  "  people  are  not  fiends,  they  are 
not  likely  to  defend  themselves  by  torture  until  the  penalties 
of  death  and  tolerable  confinement  have  shown  themselves 
destitute  of  efficacy. 

I  ask  these  questions  partly  for  myself,  and  partly  because  I  believe 
many  others  have  met  difficulties  on  the  road  to  Anarchism  which  a 
rational,  lucid  answer  would  remove. 

Perhaps  you  have  been  over  this  ground  many  times,  and  may  feel  im- 
patient to  find  any  one  as  much  in  the  dark  as  I,  but  all  would-be  reform- 
ers have  to  keep  reiterating  their  position  to  all  new-comers,  and  I  trust 
you  will  try  and  make  everything  clear  to  me,  and  to  others  who  may  be 
as  unfortunate  as  myself.  S.  Blodgett. 

Grahamville,  Florida. 

Time  and  space  are  the  only  limits  to  my  willingness  to  an- 
swer intelligent  questions  regarding  that  science  whose  rudi- 
ments I  profess  to  teach,  and  I  trust  that  my  efforts,  on  this 
occasion,  may  not  prove  entirely  inadequate  to  the  commend- 
able end  which  my  very  welcome  correspondent  had  in  view. 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND  THE  STATE.  6l 


MORE  QUESTIONS. 

{Liberty \  January  28, 1888.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

I  thank  you  for  your  courteous  treatment  of  my  questions  in  your  issue 
of  December  31,  and,  as  you  express  a  willingness  in  this  direction,  I  will 
follow  in  the  same  line,  and  trust  you  will  still  think  my  questions  are  per- 
tinent and  proper. 

Do  you  think  property  rights  can  inhere  in  anything  not  produced  by 
the  labor  or  aid  of  man  ? 

You  say,  "  Anarchism  being  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  principle  of 
equal  liberty,"  etc.  Now,  if  government  were  so  reformed  as  to  confine 
its  operations  to  the  protection  of  "equal  liberty,"  would  you  have  any 
quarrel  with  it  ?    If  so,  what  and  why  ? 

Will  you  please  explain  what  "jury  trial  in  its  original  form  "  was  ?  I 
never  knew  that  it  was  ever  essentially  different  from  what  it  is  now. 

S.  Blodgett. 

I  do  not  believe  in  any  inhei-ent  right  of  property.  Property 
is  a  social  convention,  and  may  assume  many  forms.  Only 
that  form  of  property  can  endure,  however,  which  is  based  on 
the  principle  of  equal  liberty.  All  other  forms  must  result  in 
misery,  crime,  and  conflict.  The  Anarchistic  form  of  property 
has  already  been  defined,  in  the  previous  answers  to  Mr.  Blod- 
gett, as  "  that  which  secures  each  in  the  possession  of  his  own 
products,  or  of  such  products  of  others  as  he  may  have  obtained 
unconditionally  without  the  use  of  fraud  or  force,  and  in 
the  realization  of  all  titles  to  such  products  which  he  may  hold 
by  virtue  of  free  contract  with  others."  It  will  be  seen  from 
this  definition  that  Anarchistic  property  concerns  only  prod- 
ucts. But  anything  is  a  product  upon  which  human  labor 
has  been  expended,  whether  it  be  a  piece  of  iron  or  a  piece  of 
land.* 

If  "  government  "  confined  itself  to  the  protection  of  equal 
liberty,  Anarchists  would  have  no  quarrel  with  it  ;  but  such 
protection  they  do  not  call  government.  Criticism  of  the  An- 
archistic idea  which  does  not  consider  Anarchistic  definitions 
is  futile.  The  Anarchist  defines  government  as  invasion,  noth- 
ing more  or  less.  Protection  against  invasion,  then,  is  the 
opposite  of  government.  Anarchists,  in  favoring  the  abolition 
of  government,  favor  the  abolition  of  invasion,  not  of  protec- 


*  It  should  be  stated,  however,  that  in  the  case  of  land,  or  of  any  other 
material  the  supply  of  which  is  so  limited  that  all  cannot  hold  it  in  un- 
limited quantities,  Anarchism  undertakes  to  protect  no  titles  except  such  as 
are  based  on  actual  occupancy  and  use. 


62 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


tion  against  invasion.  It  may  tend  to  a  clearer  understanding 
if  I  add  that  all  States,  to  become  non-invasive,  must  abandon 
first  the  primary  act  of  invasion  upon  which  all  of  them  rest, — 
the  collection  of  taxes  by  force— and  that  Anarchists  look  up- 
on the  change  in  social  conditions  which  will  result  when 
economic  freedom  is  allowed  as  far  more  efficiently  protective 
against  invasion  than  any  machinery  of  restraint,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  economic  freedom,  possibly  can  be. 

Jury  trial  in  its  original  form  differed  from  its  present.forms 
both  in  the  manner  of  selecting  the  jury  and  in  the  powers  of 
the  jury  selected.  It  was  originally  selected  by  drawing  twelve 
names  from  a  wheel  containing  the  names  of  the  whole  body 
of  citizens,  instead  of  by  putting  a  special  panel  of  jurors 
through  a  sifting  process  of  examination  ;  and  by  its  original 
powers  it  was  judge,  not  of  the  facts  alone,  as  is  generally  the 
case  now,  but  of  the  law  and  the  justice  of  the  law  and  the  ex- 
tent and  nature  of  the  penalty.  More  information  regarding 
this  matter  may  be  found  in  Lysander  Spooner's  pamphlet, 
"  Free  Political  Institutions." 


MR.  BLODGETT'S  FINAL  QUESTION. 

{Liberty.  April  28,  1888.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  :  - 

I  have  one  more  question,  and  it  does  not  occur  to  me  now  that  I  shall 
want  to  trouble  you  further  in  this  way. 

You  say:  "  I  do  not  believe  in  any  inherent  right  of  property.  Proper- 
is  a  social  convention."  . 

Now,  does  Anarchism  recognize  the  propriety  of  compelling  individuals 
to  regard  social-conventionalities  ? 

S.  Blodgett. 

Grahamville,  Florida. 

Readers  who  desire  to  refresh  their  minds  regarding  the  ser- 
ies of  questions  which  the  above  includes  should  consult  Nos. 
115  and  117.  The  answer  to  the  first  question  in  No.  115  is 
really  an  answer  to  the  question  now  put.  There  I  said  that 
the  only  compulsion  of  individuals  the  propriety  of  which  An- 
archism recognizes  is  that  which  compels  invasive  individuals 
to  refrain  from  overstepping  the  principle  of  equal  liberty. 
Now,  equal  liberty  itself  being  a  social  convention  (for  there 
are  no  natural  rights),  it  is  obvious  that  Anarchism  recognizes 
the  propriety  of  compelling  individuals  to  regard  one  social 
convention. '  But  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  it  recognizes 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE. 


63 


the  propriety  of  compelling  individuals  to  regard  any  and  all 
social  conventions.  Anarchism  protects  equal  liberty  (of  which 
property  based  on  labor  is  simply  an  expression  in  a  particular 
sphere),  not  because  it  is  a  social  convention,  but  because  it  is 
equal  liberty,— that  is,  because  it  is  Anarchism  itself.  An- 
archism may  properly  protect  itself,  but  there  its  mission  ends. 
This  self-protection  it  must  effect  through  voluntary  associa- 
tion, however,  and  not  through  government;  for  to  protect 
equal  liberty  through  government  is  to  invade  equal  liberty. 


TRYING  TO  BE  AND  NOT  TO  BE. 

{Liberty,  June  9,  1888.J 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty: 

I  do  not  write  this  with  the  idea  that  you  will  publish  ir,  for  the  tardiness 
with  which  you  inserted  my  last  question  indicates  that  you  do  not  care  for 
any  more  of  me  in  your  paper.  You  are  too  good  a  reasoner  to  not  know 
that,  if  it  is  proper  to  interfere  to  compel  people  "  to  regard  one  social 
convention,"  it  is  not  improper  to  force  another,  or  all,  providing  there  is 
any  satisfaction  in  doing  so.  If  "  there  are  no  natural  rights,"  there  is  no 
occasion  for  conscientious  or  other  scruples,  providing  the  power  exists. 
Therefore  there  is  no  guarantee  that  there  will  be  even  as  much  individual- 
ity permitted  under  Anarchistic  ru'e  as  under  the  present  plan,  for  the 
principle  of  human  rights  is  now  recognized,  however  far  removed  we  may 
be  from  giving  the  true  application.  The  "  equal  liberty  "  "social  con- 
vention "  catch-phrase  can  be  stamped  out  as  coolly  as  any  other.  There 
are  but  two  views  to  take  of  any  proposed  action,— that  of  right  and  that 
of  expediency, — and  as  you  have  knocked  the  idea  of  right  out.  the  thing  is 
narrowed  to"  the  lowest  form  of  selfishness.  There  certainly  can  be  no 
more  reason  why  Anarchists,  who  deny  every  obligation  on  the  ground  of 
right,  should  be  consistent  in  standing  by  the  platform  put  forward  when 
weak,  than  that  ordinary  political  parties  should  stand  by  their  promises 
made  when  out  of  power. 

I  called  "  equal  liberty  "  a  "  catch-phrase."  It  sounds  nice,  but  when 
we  criticise  it,  it  is  hollow.  For  instance,  "equal  liberty  "  may  give  every- 
one the  same  opportunity  to  take  freely  from  the  same  cabbage  patch,  the 
same  meat  barrel,  and  the  same  grain-bin.  So  long  as  no  one  interferes 
with  another,  he  is  not  overstepping  the  principle  of  "  equal  liberty,"  but 
when  one  undertakes  to  keep  others  away,  he  is,  and  you  can  only  justify 
the  proscription  by  saying  that  one  ought  to  have  liberty  there,  and  the 
others  had  not,— that ohose  who  did  nothing  in  the  production  ought  not  to 
have  "  equal  liberty  "  to  appropriate.  But  if  nobody  has  any  "  natural 
rights,"  then  the  thief  not  only  does  not  interfere  with  the  "equal  liberty  " 
of  others,  but  he  does  them  no  wrong.  You  have  done  well,  considering 
your  opportunity,  but  your  cause  is  weak.  You  are  mired  and  tangled  in 
the  web  you  have  been  weaving  beyond  material  help.  Still,  I  see  a  ray 
of  hope  for  Anarchism.  Just  unite  with  the  Christian  Science  metaphy- 
sicians, and  the  amalgamation  will  be  an  improvement.    As  I  have  looked 


64 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


it  over,  I  am  sure  the  chemical  combination  will  be  perfect,  and  the  result 
will  be  the  most  pleasing  nectar  ever  imbibed  by  suffering  humanity. 

S.  Blodgett. 

As  Mr.  Blodgett  says,  it  is  as  proper  to  enforce  one  social 
convention  as  another  "  providing  there  is  any  satisfaction  in 
doing  so."  But  Anarchists,  from  the  very  fact  that  they  are 
Anarchists,  take  no  satisfaction  in  enforcing  any  social  con- 
vention except  that  of  equal  liberty,  that  being  the  essence  of 
their  creed.  Now,  Mr.  Blodgett  asked  me  to  define  the  sphere 
of  force  as  viewed  by  Anarchism  ;  he  did  not  ask  me  to  define 
any  other  view  of  it.  To  say  that  an  Anarchist  is  entitled  to 
enforce  all  social  conventions  is  to  say  that  he  is  entitled  to 
cease  to  be  an  Anarchist,  which  nobody  denies.  But  if  he 
should  cease  to  be  an  Anarchist,  the  remaining  Anarchists 
would  still  be  entitled  to  stop  him  from  invading  them.  I  hope 
that  Mr.  Blodgett  is  a  good  enough  reasoner  to  perceive  this 
distinction,  but  I  fear  that  he  is  not. 

It  is  true,  also,  that,  if  there  are  no  natural^  rights,  there  is 
no  occasion  for  conscientious  scruples.  But  it  is  not  true  that 
there  is  no  occasion  for  "  other  scruples."  A  scruple,  accord- 
ing to  Webster,  is  "  hesitation  as  to  action  from  the  difficulty 
of°determining  what  is  right  or  expedient:'  Why  should  not 
disbelievers  in  natural  rights  hesitate  on  grounds  of  expedi- 
ency ?  In  other  words,  why  should  they  be  unscrupulous  ? 

It  is  true,  again,  that  Anarchism  does  not  recognize  the 
principle  of  human  rights.  But  it  recognizes  human  equality 
as  a  necessity  of  stable  society.  How,  then,  can  it  be  charged 
with  failing  to  guarantee  individuality  ? 

It  is  true,  further,  that  equal  liberty  can  be  stamped  out  as 
coolly  as  anything  else.  But  people  who  believe  in  it  will  not 
be  likely  to  stamp  it  out.    And  Anarchists  believe  in  it. 

It  is  true,  still  further,  that  there  are  only  two  standards  of 
conduct,— right  and  expediency.  But  why  does  elimination 
of  right  narrow  the  thing  down  to  the  lowest  form  of  selfish- 
ness ?  Is  expediency  exclusive  of  the  higher  forms  of  selfish- 
ness ?  I  deem  it  expedient,  to  be  honest.  Shall  I  not  be 
honest,  then,  regardless  of  any  idea  of  right  ?  Or  is  honesty 
the  lowest  form  of  selfishness  ? 

It  is  far  from  true,  however,  that  Anarchists  have  no  more 
reason  to  stand  by  their  platform  than  ordinary  politicians 
have  to  stand  by  theirs.  Anarchists  desire  the  advantages  of 
harmonious  society  and  know  that  consistent  adherence  to 
their  platform  is  the  only  way  to  get  them,  while  ordinary  pol- 
iticians desire  only  offices  and  "boodle,"  and  make  platforms 
simply  to  catch  votes.     Even  if  it  were  conceivable  that 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE. 


65 


hypocrites  should  step  upon  the  Anarchistic  platform  simply 
for  their  temporary  convenience,  would  that  invalidate  the 
principle  of  Anarchism  ?  Does  Mr.  Blodgett  reject  all  good 
principles  the  moment  they  are  embodied  in  party  platforms 
by  political  tricksters  ? 

General  opportunity  for  all  to  take  freely  from  the  same 
cabbage  patch  is  not  equal  liberty.  As  was  happily  pointed 
out  some  time  ago  by  a  writer  for  the  New  York  Truth 
Seeker,  whose  article  was  copied  into  Liberty,  equal  liberty 
does  not  mean  equal  slavery  or  equal  invasion.  It  means  the 
largest  amount  of  liberty  compatible  with  equality  and  mu- 
tuality of  respect,  on  the  part  of  individuals  living  m  society, 
for  their  respective  spheres  of  action.  To  appropriate  the 
cabbages  which  another  has  grown  is  not  to  respect  his  sphere 
of  action.  Hence  equal  liberty  would  recognize  no  such  con- 
duct as  proper.  ... 

The  sobriety  with  which  Mr.  Blodgett  recently  renewed  his 
questions  led  me  to  believe  that  he  did  not  relish  the  admix- 
ture of  satire  with  argument.  But  the  exquisite  touch  of 
irony  with  which  he  concludes  the  present  letter  seems  to  in- 
dicate the  contrary.  If  so,  let  him  say  the  word,  and  he  shall 
be  accommodated.  The  author  of  "  Tu-Whit  !  1  u-Whoo  ! 
is  not  yet  at  his  wits'  end. 


MR.  BLODGETT'S  EXPLANATION. 

[Liberty,  Aug.  4,  1888.] 

T< I  wasl^nTsttn^he 'questions  I  asked  concerning  the  foundation  on 
which  Anarchism  is  aiming  to  build.  I  had  thought  «>n».^ 
matter,  and  read  in  Liberty  as  it  came  in  my  way,  and  while  the  idea 
was  fair  to  look  upon,  it  seemed  to  me  one  must  have  a  loose  method  of 
reasoning  to  suppose  its  practical  realization  possible.  I  also  found  that 
[hose  of  my  acquaintance  who  favored  the  idea  reasoned  from  the  stand- 
point of  a/ imaginary,  instead  of  a  real,  humanity,  which  left  their  argu- 
ments on  the  subject  of  no  practical  value 

I  desired  to  see  what  showing  you  could  give,  if  put  to  the  test.  l 
was  readv  to  become  an  Anarchist,  if  Anarchism  could  be  made  to  ap- 
pear sensible,  though  I  own  I  believed  you  would  make  the  failure  you 
Save  In  one  thing  I  have  been  disappointed  and  pleased.  You  have 
had  the  manliness  To  face  the  dilemma  in  which  you  found  yourself  and 
published  my  last  question,  and  my  summing-up,  subsequently  I  will 
give  you  credit  for  straight  work,  and  this  is  more  than  I  expected  to  be 
able  to  do. 


66 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


When  I  wrote  my  last,  I  thought  I  was  done,  whether  you  published 
it  or  not,  and  I  should  have  stopped  there,  if  you  had  not  published  it, 
or,  if  you  had  published  it,  and  simply  made  com ments  thereon,  no  mat- 
ter what  those  comments  might  have  been  ;  but  the  challenge  and  threat 
bring  me  out  once  more.  I  will  say  on  that,  that  I  never  thought  of 
finding  fault  or  being  displeased  with  your  "  Tu-Whit  !  Tu-Whoo  !  "  and 
that  I  do  "  relish  the  admixture  of  satire  with  argument"  on  fitting  oc- 
casions. I  am  as  much  at  home  in  a  sea  of  controversy  and  irony  as  a 
fish  is  in  water,  so  there  is  no  occasion  for  your  holding  up  out  of  sym- 
pathy for  me.  Just  give  me  the  intellectual  thumps  when  you  feel  like  it 
and  can,  and  you  need  take  no  pains  to  have  them  sugar-coated. 

And  now  for  a  few  words  on  your  last  remarks.  You  accept  my  state- 
ment that  it  is  as  proper  to  enforce  one  social  convention  as  another,  pro- 
vided there  is  any  satisfaction  in  doing  so.  I  find  the  difference  between 
an  Anarchist  and  a  Governmentalist  is  nothing  here.  If  there  is  any 
difference  in  the  action  of  the  two,  it  is  not  a  difference  in  the  principles 
which  control  it.  There  might  be  a  difference  in  method,  and  a  difference 
in  the  kind  of  social  conventions  which  they  wish  to  enforce.  On  both 
of  these  points  I  suppose  I  should  have  some  sympathy  with  Anarchists 
like  you.  But  when  we  prevent  another  from  doing  as  he  otherwise 
would,  we  govern  him  in  that  particular,  and  I  see  no  advantage  in  deny- 
ing it,  or  in  trying  to  find  another  term  to  express  the  fact.  In  my 
judgment  it  is  better  to  not  attempt  to  beat  around  the  bush,  but  to  state 
plainly  the  social  conventions  and  rights  (for  such  as  me  who  believe  in 
rights")  we  wish  to  enforce,  and  such  restrictions  as  we  wish  to  free  the 
world  from,  and  fight  it  out  above  board  and  on  that  line. 

You  say  "opportunity  for  all  to  take  freely  from  the  same  cabbage 
patch  is  not  equal  liberty."  If  all  have  opportunity  to  take  freely,  I  do 
not  know  how  any  one  can  have  any  greater  liberty,  and  if  all  have  all 
there  is,  it  looks  to  me  "equal."  And  further  ;  I  maintain  that  "equal 
slavery  "  is  equal  liberty.  It  is  impossible  to  make  one's  slavery  com- 
plete ;  and  no  matter  how  small  an  amount  of  liberty  is  left,  if  the  same 
amount  is  left  for  all,  it  is  ' '  equal  liberty."  Equal  does  not  mean  much 
or  little,  but  to  be  on  a  par  with  others.  "  Equal  liberty"  is  not  the 
phrase  to  express  what  you  are  after,  and  you  will  have  to  try  again,  or 
let  it  go  that  your  ideas  are  either  muddled  or  inexpressible. 

It  is  also  puzzling  to  know  what  you  mean  by  "  invasion."  It  cannot 
be  you  mean  invasion  of  rights,  because  you  claim  there  are  no 
rights  to  invade.  But  perhaps  vou  are  having  in  view  some  "  social  con- 
vention "  to  be  invaded.  In  any  case,  "equal  invasion"  is  "equal  lib- 
erty." Suppose  you  do  not  "  respect  another's  sphere  of  action,'  that 
want  of  respect  does  not  limit  his  liberty  ;  it  is  not  necessary  for  him  to 
respect  yours,  and  that  leaves  "equal  liberty"  in  that  direction. 

I  am  glad  I  opened  this  question  as  I  did,  for  I  think  I  get  from 
what,  you  have  written  a  clue  to  your  bottom  feelings  on  it ;  and  if  I  do, 
we  are  not  so  far  apart  in  aim  as  would  appear,  and  I  recognize  that  you 
may  be  of  value  in  the  reform  world.  I  certainly  hope  that  you  may 
assist  in  loosening  the  grip  of  Government  prerogatives  relating  to  mat- 
ters purely  personal.    Here  we  can  work  together.         S.  Blodgett. 

I  am  not  conscious  that  I  have  shown  any  special  courage 
or  honesty  in  my  discussion  with  Mr.  Blodgett  ;  perhaps  this 
is  because  I  am  unconscious  of  having  been  confronted  with 
any  dilemma.    If  I  have  been  as  badly  worsted  as  he  seems 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE. 


67 


to  suppose,  it  is  fortunate  for  my  pride  and  mental  peace  that 
I  do  not  know  it.  The  "  difference  in  the  kind  of  social  con- 
ventions which  they  wish  to  enforce  "  is  the  only  difference  I 
claim  between  Anarchists  and  Governmentalists ;  it  is  quite 
difference  enough, — in  fact,  exactly  equal  to  the  difference  be- 
tween liberty  and  authority.  To  use  the  word  government  as 
meaning  the  enforcement  of  such  social  conventions  as  are 
unnecessary  to  the  preservation  of  equal  liberty  seems  to  me, 
not  beating  around  the  bush,  but  a  clear  definition  of  terms. 
Others  may  use  the  word  differently,  and  I  have  no  quarrel 
with  them  for  doing  so  as  long  as  they  refrain  from  interpret- 
ing my  statements  by  their  definitions.  "  Opportunity  for  all 
to  take  freely  from  the  same  cabbage  patch  is  not  equal  lib- 
erty," because  it  is  incompatible  with  another  liberty, — the 
liberty  to  keep.  Equal  liberty,  in  the  property  sphere,  is  such 
a  balance  between  the  liberty  to  take  and  the  liberty  to  keep 
that  the  two  liberties  may  coexist  without  conflict  or  invasion. 
In  a  certain  verbal  sense  it  may  be  claimed  that  equal  slavery 
is  equal  liberty;  but  nearly  every  one  except  Mr.  Blodgett 
realizes  that  he  who  favors  equal  slavery  favors  the  greatest 
amount  of  slavery  compatible  with  equality,  while  he  who 
favors  equal  liberty  favors  the  greatest  amount  of  liberty  com- 
patible with  equality.  This  is  a  case  in  which  emphasis  is 
everything.  By  "  invasion  "  I  mean  the  invasion  of  the  indi- 
vidual sphere,  which  is  bounded  by  the  line  inside  of  which 
liberty  of  action  does  not  conflict  with  others'  liberty  of 
action.  The  upshot  of  this  discussion  seems  to  be,  by  his 
own  confession,  that  heretofore  Mr.  Blodgett  has  miscon- 
ceived the  position  of  the  Anarchists,  whereas  now  he  under- 
stands it.  In  that  view  of  the  matter  I  concede  his  victory  ; 
for  in  all  intellectual  controversy  he  is  the  real  victor  who 
gains  the  most  light. 


A  PLEA  FOR  NON-RESISTANCE. 

[Liberty,  February^  1,  1888.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

I  must  take  exception  to  the  teaching  that  the  infliction  of  injury  upon 
aggressors  is  compatible  with  the  principle  of  equal  liberty  to  all. 

First,  with  an  argument  which  is  no  argument,  yet  which  has  its  force 
to  those  who  have  observed  the  growth  of  new  ideas  in  their  own  minds  ; 
how  there  comes  first  a  revulsion  against  what  is,  then  strong  sentiment 
in  favor  of  the  opposite,  and  last  only,  and  often  not  then  until  long 


6S 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK, 


after,  perhaps  never,  comes  the  possibility  of  rational  justification  of  the 
sentiment. 

Now,  it  is  a  matter  of  observation  that  liberty  interpreted  to  include 
non-resistance  meets  with  quick  welcome  in  many  minds  that  are  looking 
for  better  things,  while  liberty  interpreted  to  mean  our  own  liberty  to 
compel  others  is  to  the  same  minds  an  unintelligible  formula. 

And  the  reason  of  it  would  seem  to  be  this, — that  while  the  right  to 
defence,  and,  if  you  will,  to  offence  too,  is  equal  to  the  power  and  the 
desire  to  defend  or  to  offend,  it  has  no  more  to  do  with  the  actions  proper 
to  man  in  a  social  state  than  the  right  of  cannibalism,  which  undoubtedly 
also  exists,  when,  having  no  other  food,  a  man  must  feed  on  his  com- 
panion or  die  himself.  Saving  that  in  this  case,  with  the  exercise  of  this 
right  to  eat  him,  a  social  condition  with  him  no  longer  exists  ;  it  is  a  re- 
vulsion to  a  state  of  warfare. 

Who  is  to  judge  of  where  the  right  to  equal  liberty  is  infringed?  If 
each  one  is  judge,  why  may  not  the  pickpocket  say,  "You  have  right  to 
imprison  me  for  picking  your  pocket,  I  claim  that  as  my  natural  liberty 
and  I  willingly  grant  you  the  liberty  of  picking  mine  in  return — if  you 
can.  The  right  to  pick  pockets  is  co-extensive  with  the  power  to  pick 
pockets,  and  you  are  committing  an  aggression  in  imprisoning  me,  rather 
than  I  in  picking  your  pocket." 

There  is  a  difference  between  resistance  and  retaliation,  and  between 
resistance  and  anticipatory  violence.  Resistance  may  consist  in  barring 
a  door,  or  raising  a  wall  against  an  armed  attack,  or  on  behalf  of  others 
we  may  resist  by  interposing  our  own  person  to  receive  the  attack. 

But  when  the  attack  is  done  and  past,  when  the  violence  is  over,  when 
the  murder  perhaps  is  committed,  by  what  right  of  resistance  do  we  as- 
sume to  retaliate  in  cold  blood? 

Do  we  assume  that  a  man  who  has  killed  once  will  kill  again  ?  Such 
an  assumption  is  wholly  unjustifiable. 

Or,  if  it  be  admitted  that  such  an  one  is  more  likely  to  kill  a  second 
time,  do  we  kill  him  on  a  possibility  that  lies  wholly  in  the  future? 

Shall  we  say  that  he  places  himself  outside  of  society,  declares  war 
upon  it,  and  society  in  return  makes  warfare  upon  him  and  exterminates 
him  ?  Who  then  is  to  judge  of  all  the  rest  of  us  whether  we  are  suffi- 
ciently socialized  to  be  permitted  to  exist  ?  If  each  is  to  retaliate  where 
he  conceives  himself  attacked,  we  remain  in  our  present  state  of  warfare. 

Furthermore,  if  I  see  one  coming  in  a  threatening  attitude,  with  drawn 
revolver,  shall  I  shoot  first  and  kill  him  if  I  can  ? 

Doubtless  I  may,  and  take  the  chances  of  his  killing  me  ;  but,  in  doing 
so,  I  cease  to  admit  that  he  is  an  associate  ;  I  join  battle  with  him  ;  I  ac- 
cept the  fortune  of  war. 

Briefly,  the  argument  may  be  expressed  thus:  In  a  social  state  no  in- 
dividual can  be  regarded  as  outside  the  pale  of  society  for  any  cause. 
Society  must  embrace  all. 

He  that  takes  pleasure  in  aggression  is  either  undeveloped  or  a  rever- 
sion to  a  former  type,  or  his  apparent  aggression  is  really  an  attempt  to 
resist  what  he  conceives  to  be  an  injury  to  himself. 

In  any  of  these  cases  counier-violence  is  wrong, — namely,  it  does  not 
accomplish  its  purpose. 

If  the  aggressor  thinks  he  is  injured,  the  reasonable  course  is  to  ex- 
plain and  apologize,  even  though  no  injury  was  meant. 

If  the  aggression  be  prompted  by  the  mere  pleasure  of  aggression, 
the  delight  in  violence  01  a  past  type,  the  reasonable  course  is  to  regard 
the  aggressor  as  a  diseased  man,  on  a  par  with  a  lunatic,  or  delirium  tre- 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE. 


69 


mens  patient.  Confine  him,  but  as  medical  treatment.  Bind  him,  with 
no  personal  hatred  of  him  in  the  ascendant.  And,  in  confinement,  so 
far  from  torturing  him,  treat  him  asare  treated,  or  as  ought  to  be  treated, 
all  sick  and  infirm,  with  the  best  food,  with  the  best  lodging,  with  kind- 
ness, with  care,  with  love. 

This,  I  say,  is  rational  treatment. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  theory  you  advocate  can  produce  nothing  but 
what  we  see  now. 

The  people  at  large,  for  that  purpose,  if  for  no  other,  a  voluntary  as- 
sociation, hanged  the  Chicago  men.  The  people  believed  with  undoubted 
sincerity  that  they  were  in  danger  from  violence  on  the  part  of  the  vic- 
tims. They  investigated  the  justice  of  their  belief  by  means  which  they 
thought  adequate.    They  resisted  by  retaliatory  violence. 

How  can  you  by  your  principles  blame  them  ? 

It  seems  to  me,  too,  that  the  simple  proposition  is  that  to  compel  by 
violence  is  to  govern,  and  that  Anarchists,  who  protest  against  govern- 
ment, should  begin  by  saying  :  We  will  govern  nobody.  We  will  do  no 
violence. 

If  you  care  to  print  this,  I  ask  one  thing  :  Make  no  verbal  criticisms. 
I  am  not  a  Christian,  nor  a  teleologist,  nor  a  moralist,  and  any  slips  of 
language  must  not  be  construed  to  mean  that  I  am.  Another  thing  I 
ask,  subject  to  your  approval.  Do  not  refute  me  in  the  same  issue.  Per- 
haps I  am  wrong.  If  so,  I  wish  to  change  my  opinion.  You,  I  assume, 
are  as  ready  to  change  yours. 

But  it  will  take  a  little  time  for  either  of  us. 

John  Beverley  Robinson. 

If  I  could  see  that  my  silence  for  a  fortnight  could  help 
either  Mr.  Robinson  or  myself  to  a  change  of  opinion,  I  would 
certainly  grant  his  last  request.  But  it  seems  to  me  that,  if 
either  of  us  is  open  to  conviction,  such  would  be  the  very 
course  to  delay  the  change.  I  change  my  opinion  when  an  ar- 
gument is  opposed  to  it  which  I  perceive  to  be  valid  and  con- 
trolling. If  it  does  not  seem  to  me  valid  at  first,  it  rarely 
seems  otherwise  after  mere  waiting.  But  if  I  try  to  answer  it, 
I  either  destroy  it  because  of  its  weakness,  or  cause  its  strength 
to  be  made  more  palpable  by  provoking  its  restatement  in  an- 
other and  clearer  form.  I  should  think  the  same  must  hold  in 
Mr.  Robinson's  case,  if  he  is  writing  his  mature  thought;  if  he 
is  not,  I  should  advise  him  to  let  it  mature  first  and  print  it 
afterwards.  There  is,  no  doubt,  something  to  be  said  in  favor 
of  allowing  intervals  between  statements  of  opposing  views, 
but  solely  from  the  reader's  standpoint,  not  from  that  of  the 
disputants.  Such  a  plan  encourages  thought  and  compels  the 
reader  to  frame  some  sort  of  answer  for  himself  pending  the 
rejoinder  of  the  other  side.  But  in  the  conduct  of  a  journal 
this  consideration,  important  as  it  is,  is  not  the  only  one  to  be 
thought  of.  There  are  others,  and  they  all  tell  in  favor  of  the 
method  of  immediate  reply.    First,  there  is  the  consideration 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


of  space,  one  third  of  which  can  generally  be  saved  by  avoid- 
ing the  necessity  of  restating  the  opponent's  position.  Second, 
there  is  the  consideration  of  interest,  which  wanes  when  a  dis- 
cussion is  prolonged  by  frequent  delays.  Third,  there  is  the 
consideration  arising  out  of  the  fact  that  every  issue  of  a  paper 
is  seen  by  hundreds  of  people  who  never  see  another.  It  is 
better  that  such  should  read  both  sides  than  but  one. 

Mr.  Robinson's  other  request — that  I  make  no  verbal 
criticism — is  also  hard  to  comply  with.  How  am  I  to  avoid 
a  verbal  criticism  when  he  makes  against  Anarchists  a  charge 
of  inconsistency  which  can  only  be  sustained  by  a  definition 
of  government  which  Anarchists  reject  ?  He  says  that  the 
essence  of  government  is  compulsion  by  violence.  If  it  is, 
then  of  course  Anarchists,  always  opposing  government,  must 
always  oppose  violence.  But  Anarchists  do  not  so  define 
government.  To  them  the  essence  of  government  is  invasion. 
From  the  standpoint  of  this  definition,  why  should  Anar- 
chists, protesting  against  invasion  and  determined  not  to  be 
invaded,  not  use  violence  against  it,  provided  at  any  time 
violence  shall  seem  the  most  effective  method  of  putting  a 
stop  to  it  ? 

But  it  is  not  the  most  effective  method,  insists  Mr.  Robin- 
son in  another  part  of  his  article  ;  "  it  does  not  accomplish  its 
purpose."  Ah  !  here  we  are  on  quite  another  ground.  The 
claim  no  longer  is  that  it  is  necessarily  un-Anarchistic  to  use 
violence,  but  that  other  influences  than  violence  are  more 
potent  to  overcome  invasion.  Exactly  ;  that  is  the  gospel 
which  Liberty  has  always  preached.  I  have  never  said  any- 
thing to  the  contrary,  and  Mr.  Robinson's  criticism,  so  far  as 
it  lies  in  this  direction,  seems  to  me  mal  a  propos.  His  article 
is  prompted  by  my  answers  to  Mr.  Blodgett  in  No.  115.  Mr. 
Blodgett's  questions  were  not  as  to  what  Anarchists  would 
find  it  best  to  do,  but  as  to  what  their  Anarchistic  doctrine 
logically  binds  them  to  do  and  avoid  doing.  I  confined  my 
attention  strictly  to  the  matter  in  hand,  omitting  extraneous 
matters.  Mr.  Robinson  is  not  justified  in  drawing  infer- 
ences from  my  omissions,  especially  inferences  that  are  antago- 
nistic to  my  definite  assertions  at  other  times. 

Perhaps  he  will  answer  me,  however,  that  there  are  certain 
circumstances  under  which  I  think  violence  advisable. 
Granted  ;  but,  according  to  his  article,  so  does  he.  These 
circumstances,  however,  he  distinguishes  from  the  social  state 
as  a  state  of  warfare.  But  so  do  I.  The  question  comes 
upon  what  you  are  to  do  when  a  man  makes  war  upon  you. 
Ward  him  off,  says  Mr.  Robinson,  but  do  not  attack  him  in 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,    AND   THE   STATE.  7  I 


turn  to  prevent  a  repetition  of  his  attack.  As  a  general  policy, 
I  agree  ;  as  a  rule  without  exceptions,  I  dissent.  Suppose  a 
man  tries  to  knock  me  down.  I  will  parry  his  blows  for  a  while, 
meanwhile  trying  to  dissuade  him  from  his  purpose.  But 
suppose  he  does  not  desist,  and  I  have  to  take  a  train  to 
reach  the  bedside  of  my  dying  child.  I  straightway  knock 
him  down  and  take  the  train.  And  if  afterwards  he  repeats 
his  attack  again  and  again,  and  thereby  continually  takes  my 
time  away  from  the  business  of  my  life,  I  put  him  out  of  my 
way,  in  the  most  decent  manner  possible,  but  summarily  and 
forever.  In  other  words,  it  is  folly  for  people  who  desire  to 
live  in  society  to  put  up  with  the  invasions  of  the  incorrigible. 
Which  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  with  the  corrigible  it  is  not 
only  good  policy,  but  in  accordance  with  the  sentiments  of 
highly-developed  human  beings,  to  be  as  gentle  and  kind  as 
possible. 

To  describe  such  dealing  with  the  incorrigible  as  the  exer- 
cise of  "  our  liberty  to  compel  others  "  denotes  an  utter  mis- 
conception. It  is  simply  the  exercise  of  our  liberty  to  keep 
others  from  compelling  us. 

But  who  is  to  judge  where  invasion  begins  ?  asks  Mr.  Rob- 
inson. Each  for  himself,  and  those  to  combine  who  agree,  I 
answer.  It  will  be  perpetual  war,  then  ?  Not  at  all  ;  a  war 
of  short  duration,  at  the  worst.  I  am  well  aware  that  there  is 
a  border-land  between  legitimate  and  invasive  conduct  over 
which  there  must  be  for  a  time  more  or  less  trouble.  But  it 
is  an  ever-decreasing  margin.  It  has  been  narrowing  ever 
since  the  idea  of  equal  liberty  first  dawned  upon  the  mind  of 
man,  and  in  proportion  as  this  idea  becomes  clearer  and  the 
new  social  conditions  which  it  involves  become  real  will  it 
contract  towards  the  geometrical  conception  of  a  line.  And 
then  the  world  will  be  at  peace.  Meanwhile,  if  the  pick-pocket 
continues  his  objectionable  business,  it  will  not  be  because 
of  any  such  reasoning  as  Mr.  Robinson  puts  into  his  mouth. 
He  may  so  reason,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  never  does.  Or, 
if  he  does,  he  is  an  exceptional  pick-pocket.  The  normal 
pick-pocket  has  no  idea  of  equal  liberty.  Whenever  the  idea 
dawns  upon  him,  he  will  begin  to  feel  a  desire  for  its  reali- 
zation and  to  acquire  a  knowledge  of  what  equal  liberty  is. 
Then  he  will  see  that  it  is  exclusive  of  pocket-picking.  And 
so  with  the  people  who  hanged  the  Chicago  martyrs.  I  have 
never  blamed  them  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  word  blame.  I 
charge  them  with  committing  gross  outrage  upon  the  principle 
of  equal  liberty,  but  not  with  knowing  what  they  did.  When 
they  become  Anarchists,  they  will  realize  what  they  did,  and 


72 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


will  do  so  no  more.  To  this  end  my  comrades  and  I  are  try- 
ing to  enlighten  them  concerning  the  principle  of  equal  liberty. 
But  we  shall  fail  if  we  obscure  the  principle  by  denying  or 
concealing  the  lengths  to  which,  in  case  of  need,  it  allows  us 
to  go  lest  people  of  tender  sensibilities  may  infer  that  we  are 
in  favor  of  always  going  to  such  lengths,  regardless  of  circum- 
stances. 


LIBERTY  AND  AGGRESSION. 

[Liberty,  February  2,  1889.] 

My  dear  Mr.  Tucker: 

Liberty  has  done  me  a  great  service  in  carrying  me  from  the  metaphysical 
speculations  in  which  I  was  formerly  interested  into  a  vein  of  practical 
thought  which  is  more  than  a  mere  overflow  of  humanitarianism  ;  which  is 
as  closely  logical  and  strictly  scientific  as  any  other  practical  investigation. 
In  spite  of  certain  small  criticisms  which  it  would  be  petty  to  dwell  upon, 
it  is  the  most  advanced  and  most  intellectual  paper  that  I  have  seen.  I 
esteem  it  most  highly. 

The  particular  matter  upon  which  we  have  exchanged  letters — the  ques- 
tion of  non-resistance — is  still  in  my  mind,  but  it  is  hard  for  me  to  find 
time  to  write  anything  for  publication.    Perhaps  it  is  even  premature. 

Of  course  1  see  very  clearly  that  economically  Anarchism  is  complete 
without  including  any  question  as  to  force  or  no-force  at  all:  but  the  im- 
portance, of  preaching  one  or  the  other  as  a  means  of  obtaining  or  perpet- 
uating Anarchy  has  not  diminished  in  my  mind. 

People  invariably  feel,  if  they  do  not  ask:  '*  How  are  you  going  to  ac- 
complish it?"    And  I  think  the  question  is  valid. 

In  every  definition  of  liberty,  or  of  aggression,  there  is  a  reference  to  a 
certain  limit  beyond  which  liberty  becomes  aggression.  How  this  limit  is  cer- 
tainly determinable  I  have  never  seen  any  one  attempt  to  show.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  history  of  liberty  has  been  a  record  of  the  continual  widening  of 
this  limit.  Once  there  was  a  time  when  religious  heterodoxy  was  regard- 
ed as  an  aggression,  not  vainly  I  think  you  will  admit  when  you  remem- 
ber how  much  our  actions  are  influenced  by  our  predisposing  theories. 
When  it  was  commonly  thought,  even  by  transgressors  themselves,  that 
nothing  but  the  acceptance  of  certain  dogmas  prevented  all  men  from  be- 
coming transgressors,  it  was  not  unreasonable  to  "  resist  the  beginnings." 

So  now  when  multitudes  of  good  people  regard  the  maintenance  of  the 
State  as  essential  to  the  preservation  of  security,  it  is  no  wonder  that  they 
should  easily  be  inflamed  against  those  who  openly  antagonize  the  State. 
Formerly  to  think  heterodoxy  was  regarded  as  an  aggression.  Afterwards 
thought  was  freed,  but  speech  was  limited.  To  speak  of  the  forbidden 
thing  was  then  an  aggression,  and  still  is  to  some  extent. 

What  is  the  line?  Where  is  the  limit?  Thought  and  speech  can  both 
be  absolutely  free.    Thinking  or  talking  cannot  really  hurt  anybody. 

But  when  we  come  to  actions,  where  are  we  to  stop  ? 

That  this  line  which  separates  liberty  from  aggression  should  be  drawn 
"  seems  to  me  essential  to  the  working  of  the  Anarchistic  principle  in  actual 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND  THE  STATE. 


73 


practice.  As  an  illustration,  you  and  Egoist  in  the  last  issue  of  Liberty 
consider  each  the  other  an  aggressor  in  a  certain  case. 

Is  not  government  really  a  bungling  attempt,  but  perhaps  the  best  we 
could  do  up  to  this  time,  to  settle  the  question,  roughly  and  arbitrarily, 
between  parties  who  each  regarded  themselves  as  within  their  right  and 
the  other  as  the  aggressor  ? 

So  it  would  appear  to  me.  Even  the  land  laws  and  other  laws  which 
seem  primary  are,  I  think,  only  secondary.  I  am  not  profoundly  versed 
in  the  history  of  law,  but  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  statutes  and  the 
generalizations  of  common  law  have  sprung  from  the  collocation  of  many 
individual  decisions,  each  decision  being  the  best  that  could  be  arrived  at 
under  the  circumstances  of  the  time. 

If  this  is  at  all  a  fair  description  of  what  is,— that  is,  if  law  is  a  rough  at- 
tempt to  draw  the  line  between  liberty  and  aggression,  and  not  a  conscious 
deliberate  fraud  committed  by  the  privileged  upon  the  oppressed  (and  I 
think  the  notion  of  the  State  being  "a  conspiracy  "  is  as  empty  as  the  par- 
allel notion  of  some  of  our  secularist  friends  that  the  Church  is  a  con- 
spiracy of  priests),— if  the  State  is  the  result  of  attempts  to  determine  the 
limit  of  liberty,  no  theory  that  dispenses  with  the  State  is  complete  unless 
it  otherwise  defines  that  limit. 

The  essence  of  aggression,  the  reason  that  it  is  forbidden,  is  that 
it  causes  pain.  Pain,  even  when  caused  by,  or  a  concomitant  of,  properly 
limited  liberty,  is  in  itself  a  wrong, — an  antagonist  of  personal  or  social 
progress.  If  aggression  were  uniformly  pleasant,  it  would  be  regarded  as 
commendable. 

So  that  if  in  the  exercise  of  my  liberty  I  give  pain  to  anybody,  in  so  far 
as  I  give  pain  I  am  committing  an  aggression.  If  I  bathe  naked  before 
one  who  is  shocked  by  such  exhibition,  doubtless  his  prudery  is  unjustifi- 
able ;  that,  however,  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  I  have  deliberately  injured 
him, — I  have  committed  an  aggression. 

In  trying  to  logically  define  this  limit,  I  have  cast  about  in  various  di- 
rections. At  one  time  it  seemed  that  individual  liberty  included  a  right  to 
all  non-action.  That  is,  that  people  have  a  right  to  sav  to  any  one  :  "  You 
are  injuring  us  by  your  proceedings  ;  you  must  stop  but  that  they  have 
no  right  to  say  :  "  It  is  essential  to  our  happiness  that  you  should  do  this 
or  that." 

I  am  not  sure  that  this  is  not  a  correct  idea,  but  the  statement  lacks 
precision,  and  I  have  not  so  far  been  able  to  attenuate  it. 

The  best  thought  that  I  have  yet  had  is  that  what  is  called  "  non-resist- 
ance "  is  the  true  guide.  A  better  word  would  be  "  non-retaliation,"  yet 
even  that  is  not  quite  right. 

At  the  bottom  there  is  a  feeling  that  no  one  attacks  another  nowadays 
for  fun.  If  a  man  attacks  me,  I  immediately  conclude  that  J* have  injured 
him,  or  that  he  thinks  that  I  have  injured  him.  If  I  could  "  paralyze  him 
by  a  glance  "  or  otherwise  "  resist  "  him  without  injuring  him,  I  should 
hardly  call  it  resistance.  Usually,  however,  there  are  but  two  courses  open. 
One  a  timely  apology:  the  other  a  counter  attack.  If  I  adopt  the  latter 
and  disable  him  or  kill  him,  the  question  of  who  first  aggressed  is  undeter- 
mined. I  have  assumed  an  aristocratic  attitude  of  impeccability  ;  sociality 
does  not  exist. 

As  for  those  who  take  pleasure  in  aggression,  it  is  an  evanescent  type. 
They  are  hospital  subjects,  reversions  to  an  ancestral  type,  certainly  not 
responsible  individuals. 

Briefly,  the  question  of  what  constitutes  aggression  can  be  settled  only 
by  compact  between  individuals.    In  order  to  arrive  at  an  understanding 


j4  INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 

and  form  the  compact,  the  opinion  of  the  one  that  thinks  he  is  e«"oached 
upon  must  be  final  if  it  cannot  be  removed  by  argument,-that  ,s,  by 

ChnI^cdoCn0isVipCerlSed  in  which  any  one  conceives  to  be  an  aggression 
it  virtuallv  is  an  aggression;  and  the  friend  of  liberty  is  com- 
^om^..S^lty»  -S^to  recede,  rather  than  to  inflict  injury  in 

C°f  iSfha^u  wfll  seize  my  idea.    I  do  not  regard  this  as  final,  but  I 
think  some  dearly fegicat demarcation  essentia^ 

67  Liberty  Street,  New  York,  January  25.  t889- 

While  I  should  like  to  see  the  line  between  liberty  and 
aggression  drawn  with  scientific  exactness  I  cannot  admit 
that  such  rigor  of  definition  is  essential  to  the.  realization  of 
Schism  If,  in  spite  of  the  lack  of  such  a  definition,  the 
history  of  liberty  has  been,  as  Mr.  Robinson  truly  says,  a 
record  of  the  continual  widening  of  this  limit,"  there  is  no 
reason  why  this  widening  process  should  not  go  on  until  An- 
archy becomes  a  fact.  It  is  perfectly  thinkable  that,  .after  the 
fast  inch  of  debatable  ground  shall  have  been  adjudged  to  one 
side  or  he  other,  it  may  still  be  found  impossible  to  scientifically 
formulate  the  rule  by  which  this  decision  and  its  predecessors 

WeTheThTef  influence  in  narrowing  the  strip  of  debatable  land 
is  not  so  much  the  increasing  exactness  of  the  knowledge  of 
what  constitutes  aggression  as  the  growing  conception  that  ag- 
messionfe an  evil  to  be  avoided  and  that  liberty  is  the  condi- 
fion  of  progress.    The  moment  one  abandons  the  idea  that  he 
was  born  To  discover  what  is  right  and  enforce  ft  upon  the .res 
of  the  world,  he  begins  to  feel  an  increasing  disposition  to  let 
others  alone  and  to  refrain  even  from  retaliation  or  resistance  ex- 
°ept  hr  hote  emergencies  which  immediately  and  imperatively 
require  it.    This  remains  true  even  if  aggression  be  defined 
in  the  extremely  broad  sense  of  the  infliction  of  pain  ;  for  he 
individual  who  traces  the  connection  between  liberty  and  he 
general  welfare  will  be  pained  by  few  things  so  much  as  by  the 
consciousness  that  his  neighbors  are  curtailing  their  hbertiesout 
TcSeration  for  his  feelings,  and  such  a  man  wil never say 
to  his  neighbors,  "  Thus  far  and  no  farther,    until  they  com 
mit  acts  of  direct  and  indubitable  interference  and  trespass.  The 
man  who  feels  more  pained  at  seeing  his  neighbor  bathe  naked 
Tan  he  would  at  the  knowledge  that  he  refrained  from  doing 
so  in  spile  of  his  preference  is  invariably  the  man  who  be- 
ievesinPaggression  'and  government  as  the  basis  of  society  and 
hllnot  learned  the  lesson  that  "liberty  is  the  mother  of  order. 
TWs  lesson,  then,  rather  than  an  exact  definition  of  aggres- 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE. 


75 


sion,  is  the  essential  condition  of  the  development  of  Anar- 
chism. Liberty  has  steadily  taught  this  lesson,  but  has  never 
professed  an  ability  to  define  aggression,  except  in  a  very 
general  way.  We  must  trust  to  experience  and  the  conclu- 
sions therefrom  for  the  settlement  of  all  doubtful  cases. 

As  for  States  and  Churches,  I  think  there  is  more  founda- 
tion than  Mr.  Robinson  sees  for  the  claim  that  they  are  con- 
spiracies. Not  that  I  fail  to  realize  as  fully  as  he  that  there 
are  many  good  men  in  both  whose  intent  is  not  at  all  to  oppress 
or  aggress.  Doubtless  there  are  many  good  and  earnest  priests 
whose  sole  aim  is  to  teach  religious  truth  as  they  see  it  and 
elevate  human  life,  but  has  not  Dr.  McGlynn  conclusively 
shown  that  the  real  power  of  control  in  the  Church  is  always 
vested  in  an  unscrupulous  machine  ?  That  the  State  origi- 
nated in  aggression  Herbert  Spencer  has  proved.  If  it  now 
^pretends  to  exist  for  purposes  of  defence,  it  is  because  the 
advance  of  sociology  has  made  such  a  pretence  necessary  to 
its  preservation.  Mistaking  this  pretence  for  reality,  many 
good  men  enlist  in  the  work  of  the  State.  But  the  fact  re- 
mains that  the  State  exists  mainly  to  do  the  will  of  capital  and 
secure  it  all  the  privileges  it  demands,  and  I  cannot  see  that 
the  combinations  of  capitalists  who  employ  lobbyists  to  buy 
legislators  deserve  any  milder  title  than  "  conspirators,"  or  that 
the  term  "  conspiracy  "  inaccurately  expresses  the  nature  of 
their  machine,  the  State. 


RULE  OR  RESISTANCE— WHICH? 

\_Liberty,  December  26,  1891.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty: 

Do  you  think  that  it  is  accurate  to  say,  as  Liberty  has  said  recently, 
that  Anarchism  contemplates  the  use  of  police,  jails,  and  other  forms  of 
force?  Is  it  not  rather  that  Anarchism  contemplates  that  those  who 
wish  these  means  of  protection  shall  pay  for  them  themselves  ;  while 
those  who  prefer  other  means  shall  only  pay  for  what  they  want  ?  (1) 

Indeed,  the  whole  teaching  that  it  is  expedient  to  use  force  against  the 
invader,  which,  as  you  know,  I  have  always  had  doubts  about,  seems  to 
me  to  fall  when  Egoism  is  adopted  as  the  basis  of  our  thought.  To  de- 
scribe a  man  as  an  invader  seems  a  reminiscence  of  the  doctrine  of 
natural  depravity.  It  fails  to  recognize  that  all  desires  stand  upon  a  par, 
morally,  and  that  it  is  for  us  to  find  the  most  convenient  way  of  gratify- 
ing as  much  of  everybody's  desires  as  possible.  To  say  that  a  certain 
formula  proposed  by  us  to  this  end  is  "justice,"  and  that  all  who  do  not 
conform  to  it — all  who  are  "  unjust" — will  be  suppressed  by  us  by  vio- 
lence, is  precisely  parallel  to  the  course  of  those  who  say  that  their  for- 


76 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


mula  for  the  regulation  of  conduct  is  the  measure  of  righteousness,  and 
that  they  will  suppress  the  "  unrighteous"  by  violence.  (2) 

As  I  absorb  the  Egoistic  sentiment,  it  begins  to  appear  that  the  funda- 
mental demand  is  not  liberty,  but  the  cessation  of  violence  in  the  obtain- 
ing of  gratification  for  desires. 

By  the  cessation  of  violence  we  shall  obtain  liberty,  but  liberty  is  the 
end  rather  than  the  means.  (3) 

"We  demand  liberty,"  say  the  Anarchists.  "Yes,  but  we  see  no 
reason  why  we  should  forego  our  desire  to  control  you,  by  your  own 
canons,  if  you  are  Egoists,"  replies  the  majority.  "  Truly,"  we  answer, 
"but  we  point  out  to  you  that  it  is  for  your  advantage  to  give  us  liberty." 
"At  present  we  are  satisfied  of  the  contrary;  we  are  satisfied  that  you 
wish  to  upset  institutions  that  we  wish  to  preserve,"  say  they.  "  We 
do,  indeed,"  we  reply,  "but  we  will  not  invade  you,  we  will  not  prevent 
you  from  doing  anything  you  wish,  provided  it  does  not  tend  to  deter 
us  from  uninvasive  activities."  "We  think,"  concludes  the  majority, 
"  that  in  attempting  to  destroy  what  we  wish  to  preserve  you  are  invad- 
ing us  "  ;  and  how  are  we  to  establish  the  contrary  except  by  laying 
down  a  practicable  definition  of  invasion — one  by  which  it  can  be  demon- 
strated that  using  unoccupied  but  claimed  land,  for  instance,  is  not  in- 
vasive. (4) 

No,  it  seems  to  me  that  no  definition  of  invasion  can  be  made;  that  it 
is  a  variable  quantity,  like  liberty  itself. 

When  you  said,  some  time  ago,  that  liberty  was  not  a  natural  right, 
but  a  social  contract,  I  think  you  covered  the  case.  If,  however,  liberty 
is  a  matter  of  contract,  is  not  invasion,  which  is  the  limit  of  liberty,  also 
a  matter  of  contract?  (5) 

What  Anarchism  really  means  is  the  demand  for  the  rule  of  contract, 
rather  than  for  the  rule  of  violence. 

"  As  Egoists,  we  Anarchists  point  out  to  you,  the  majority,  that  the 
pleasure  of  mankind  in  fighting  for  the  sake  of  fighting  is  rapidly  declin- 
ing from  disuse.  We  point  out  further  that  from  any  other  point  of 
view  fighting  is  not  to  the  interest  of  anybody;  that  desires  can  be  grati- 
fied and  the  harmonization  of  clashing  interests  attained  much  more 
pleasurably  without  fighting."  "  That  is  true,"  the  majority  replies,  for, 
though  the  majority  really  enjoys  fighting  for  the  fun  of  it,  it  has  got  to 
a  point  where  it  will  not  admit  that  it  does,  and  to  a  point  w7here  it 
clearly  perceives  the  costliness  of  the  amusement. 

"  We  propose  then,"  the  Anarchists  continue,  "  not  to  settle  differ- 
ences by  violence  ;  but  to  reach  the  best  agreement  that  we  can  without 
violence.  We  propose  this  with  the  more  confidence  that  you  will  accept 
it,  because  you  yourselves  are  beginning  to  admit  that  the  condition  of 
existence  for  men  is  not  the  former  ascetic  suppression,  but  the  gratifi- 
cation of  desires.  We  therefore  propose  that  you  shall  at  once  cease  to 
repress  by  violence  conduct  which  is  not  against  your  interests  and  which 
you  now  suppress  only  on  account  of  a  surviving  belief  that  you  are 
called  upon  to  suppress  it  for  the  interest  of  the  doers.  Following  that, 
we  shall  make  other  demands  for  the  cessation  of  violence." 

But,  of  course,  in  proposing  contract  instead  of  violence,  it  follows 
that  we  abjure  violence  as  a  principle  ;  we  become  what  I  think  it  is  fair 
to  call  non-resistants.  That  is  to  say  that,  although  we  do  not  guarantee 
our  actions  should  our  fellows  refuse  to  accept  our  proposal  of  the  system 
of  contract,  we  do  not  for  a  moment  suppose  that  such  possible  reversions 
to  violence  are  a  part  of  the  new  system  of  contract.  (6) 

We  must  hold,  as  Egoists,  that  the  gratification  of  the  desires  of 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE. 


77- 


"criminals"  is  no  more  subject  to  "moral"  condemnation  than  our 
own  actions,  though  from  our  point  of  view  it  may  be  regrettable  ;  and 
that  by  just  as  much  as  we  permit  ourselves  to  use  violence  to  repress 
it,  by  just  so  much  we  fortify  the  continuation  of  the  present  reign  of 
violence,  and  postpone  the  coming  of  the  reign  of  contract.  Therefore 
it  is  that  I  call  myself  a  non-resistant  and  regard  non-resistance  as  the 
necessary  implication  for  an  Egoist  who  prefers  contract  to  violence. 

When  I  say  non-resistance,  I  must  explain  that,  so  to  speak,  I  do  not 
mean  non-resistance,— that  is  to  say,  I  mean  resistance  by  every  means 
except  counter-violence. 

The  editorials  that  have  recently  appeared  in  Liberty  signed  by  Mr. 
Yarros  have  had  to  me  a  strongly  moralistic  flavor,  as  indeed  it  is 
inevitable  they  should  have,  from  his  avowed  views  ;  I  think  Pentecost's 
views  more  in  conformity  with  Egoism.  By  the  way,  I  should  be  glad 
if  Mr.  Yarros  could  explain  the  moralistic  position  more  clearly  in 
Liberty  ;  or  if  you  and  he  could  have  a  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the 
matter.  '  John  Beverley  Robinson. 

67  Liberty  Street,  New  York,  December  10,  1891. 

(1)  I  think  it  accurate  to  say  that  Anarchism  contemplates 
anything  and  everything  that  does  not  contradict  Anarchism. 
The  writer  whom  Liberty  criticised  had  virtually  made  it 
appear  that  police  and  jails  do  contradict  Anarchism.  Liberty 
simply  denies  this,  and  in  that  sense  contemplates  police  and 
jails.  Of  course  it  does  not  contemplate  the  compulsory  sup- 
port of  such  institutions  by  non-invasive  persons. 

(2)  When  I  describe  a  man  as  an  invader,  I  cast  no  re- 
flection upon  him;  I  simply  state  a  fact.  Nor  do  I  assert  for 
a  moment  the  moral  inferiority  of  the  invader's  desire.  I  only 
declare  the  impossibility  of  simultaneously  gratifying  the  in- 
vader's desire  to  invade  and  my  desire  to  be  let  alone.  That 
these  desires  are  morally  equal  I  cheerfully  admit,  but  they 
cannot  be  equally  realized.  Since  one  must  be  subordinated 
to  the  other,  I  naturally  prefer  the  subordination  of  the  in- 
vader's, and  am  ready  to  co-operate  with  non-invasive  persons 
to  achieve  that  result.  I  am  not  wedded  to  the  term  "justice," 
nor  have  I  any  objection  to  it.  If  Mr.  Robinson  doesn't  like 
it,  let  us  say  "  equal  liberty  "  instead.  Does  he  maintain  that 
the  use  of  force  to  secure  equal  liberty  is  precisely  parallel  to 
the  use  of  force  to  destroy  equal  liberty  ?  If  so,  I  can  only 
hope,  for  the  sake  of  those  who  live  in  the  houses  which  he 
builds,  that  his  appreciation  of  an  angle  is  keener  in  architec- 
ture than  it  is  in  sociology. 

(3)  If  the  invader,  instead  of  chaining  me  to  a  post,  bar- 
ricades the  highway,  do  I  any  the  less  lose  my  liberty  of  loco- 
motion ?  Yet  he  has  ceased  to  be  violent.  We  obtain  liberty, 
not  by  the  cessation  of  violence,  but  by  the  recognition,  either 
voluntary  or  enforced,  of  equality  of  liberty. 

(4)  We  are  to  establish  the  contrary  by  persistent  inculcation 


7S 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


of  the  doctrine  of  equality  of  liberty,  whereby  finally  the 
majority  will  be  made  to  see  in  regard  to  existing  forms  of 
invasion  what  they  have  already  been  made  to  see  in  regard 
to  its  obsolete  forms, — namely,  that  they  are  not  seeking 
equality  of  liberty  at  all,  but  simply  the  subjection  of  all 
others  to  themselves.  Our  sense  of  what  constitutes  invasion 
has  been  acquired  by  experience.  Additional  experience  is 
continually  sharpening  that  sense.  Though  we  still  draw  the 
line  by  rule  of  thumb,  we  are  drawing  it  more  clearly  every 
day.  It  would  be  an  advantage  if  we  could  frame  a  clear-cut 
generalization  whereby  to  accelerate  our  progress.  But  though 
we  have  it  not,  we  still  progress. 

(5)  Suppose  it  is  ;  what  then  ?  Must  I  consent  to  be  trampled 
upon  simply  because  no  contract  has  been  made  ? 

(6)  So  the  position  of  the  non-resistant  is  that,  when  nobody 
attacks  him,  he  won't  resist.  "  We  are  all  Socialists  now,"  said 
some  Englishman  not  long  ago.  Clearly  we  are  all  non-resist- 
ants now,  according  to  Mr.  Robinson.  I  know  of  no  one  who 
proposes  to  resist  when  he  isn't  attacked,  of  no  one  who  pro- 
poses to  enforce  a  contract  which  nobody  desires  to  violate. 
I  tell  Mr.  Robinson,  as  I  have  told  Mr.  Pentecost,  that  the  be- 
lievers in  equal  liberty  ask  nothing  better  than  that  all  men 
should  voluntarily  act  in  accordance  with  the  principle.  But 
it  is  a  melancholy  fact  that  many  men  are  not  willing  so  to 
act.  So  far  as  our  relations  with  such  men  are  concerned,  it 
is  not  a  matter  of  contract,  but  of  force.  Shall  we  consent  to 
be  ruled,  or  shall  we  refuse  to  be  ruled  ?  If  we  consent,  are 
we  Anarchists?  If  we  refuse,  are  we  Archists?  The  whole 
question  lies  there,  and  Mr.  Robinson  fails  to  meet  it. 


THE  ADVISABILITY  OF  VIOLENCE. 

[Liberty,  January  16, 1892.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

When  you  preach  passive  resistance,  is  it  not  precisely  the  same  thing 
as  what  is  commonly  called  non-resistance? 

•  When  William  Perm  (or  was  it  Fox  ?)  refused  to  take  off  his  hat  for  the 
king  it  was  certainly  passive  resistance  ;  but,  as  he  made  no  attempt  to 
punch  the  king's  head,  it  is  accounted  as  quite  compatible  with  the 
Friends'  non-resistance  tenets.  (1) 

I  do  not  think  that  any  practical  difference  exists  between  passive  re- 
sistance and  non-resistance.  Yet  you  urge  that  in  emergency  violence 
must  be  resorted  to.  Why  ?  In  what  emergency  ?  If  violence  is  as  a 
matter  of  principle  advisable  in  certain  cases,  why  not  in  other  cases? 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE. 


79 


Why  not  embrace  the  advocacy  of  violence  of  the  Communists  through- 
out? (2) 

Intelligible  enough  as  a  political  measure,  Anarchism  halts  as  a  system 
of  philosophy  as  long  as  it  includes  violence  at  all.  To  people  who 
think  government  exists  to  suppress  robbery,  it  is  sufficient  to  point  out 
that  government  exists  by  robbery,  and  to  enlarge  upon  the  advantages 
that  might  be  expected  to  follow  the  establishment  of  freedom  of  mem- 
bership in  political  societies.  (3) 

But  all  this  involves  no  question  as  to  what  constitutes  invasion.  It  is 
simply  stated  that  each  shall  take  such  measures  as  he  prefers  to  protect 
himself,  and  that  each  shall  determine  for  himself  what  protection  is. 

If,  however,  we  go  further,  and  lay  down  a  formula,  however  defensible 
the  formula  may  be  ;  and  say  that  we  will  by  violence  enforce  that  for- 
mula, whether  it  be  the  formula  of  equal  liberty  or  any  other  formula,  I 
must  maintain  that  the  action  is  precisely  parallel  to  the  course  of  every- 
body in  the  past  and  present  who  have  compelled  others  to  regulate  their 
conduct  in  accordance  with  other  formulas,  alleged  to  be  moral,  and  held 
to  be  as  irrefragable  as  you  now  hold  the  formula  of  equal  liberty  to 
be.  (4) 

"Do  not  pick  people's  pockets  to  make  them  pay  for  protection  they 
don't  want,"  is  good  enough  as  far  as  it  goes. 
It  may  perhaps  be  well  to  go  no  further. 

But  if  we  have  to  go  further  and  ask,  What  is  protection  ?  or,  What  is 
invasion  ?  the  complement  of  protection,  the  only  reply  you  can  give  is 
that  invasion  is  infringing  upon  equal  liberty. 

Until  some  method  is  devised  by  which  we  can  tell  whether  a  given  act 
does  infringe  upon  equal  liberty  the  definition  is  vain.  (5)  * 

For  instance,  in  a  state  of  liberty  Mr.  Yarros  prints  a  book.  You 
copy  it.  He  organizes  a  society  for  the  suppression  of  pirates  and  im- 
prisons you.    Your  friends  organize  and  a  battle  ensues. 

You  will  doubtless  say  that  you  would  not  advocate  violence  under  such 
circumstances  to  either  side.    I  again  ask,  Why  not  ?  (6) 

Investigate  your  own  principles  and  you  will  find  that  the  recognition 
of  equal  liberty  rests  upon  the  recognition  of  contract  as  supplanting  vio- 
lence. Although  we  may  think  it  wise  among  cannibals  to  become  canni- 
bals ourselves  ;  although  when  forced  to  it  we  may  degrade  ourselves  to 
use  violence  ;  let  us  at  least  recognize  that  the  state  of  affairs  when  every 
one  shall  do  as  he  pleases  can  only  occur  when  all  lay  aside  violence  and 
appeal  only  to  reason.  Let  us  at  least  recognize  that  it  is  for  us  to  totally 
abjure  violence  as  a  principle  of  action;  and  if  we  at  any  time  deem  our- 
selves compelled  to  do  violence  let  us  admit  that  we  do  it  under  protest  and 
not  from  principle.  (7) 

John  Beverley  Robinson. 

(1)  The  chief  difference  between  passive  resistance  and 
non-resistance  is  this  :  passive  resistance  is  regarded  by  its 
champions  as  a  mere  policy,  while  non-resistance  is  viewed  by 
those  who  favor  it  as  a  principle  or  universal  rule.  Believers 
in  passive  resistance  consider  it  as  generally  more  effective 
than  active  resistance,  but  think  that  there  are  certain  cases 
in  which  the  opposite  is  true  ;  believers  in  non-resistance  con- 
sider either  that  it  is  immoral  to  actively  resist  or  else  that  it 
is  always  unwise  to  do  so. 


So  INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


(2)  Because  violence,  like  every  other  policy,  is  advisable 
when  it  will  accomplish  the  desired  end  and  inadvisable  when 

it  will  not.  . 

(3)  Anarchism  is  philosophical,  but  it  is  not  a  system  of 
philosophy.  It  is  simply  the  fundamental  principle  in  the 
science  of  political  and  social  life.  The  believers  in  govern- 
ment are  not  as  easily  to  be  satisfied  as  Mr.  Robinson  thinks; 
and  it  is  well  that  they  are  not.  The  considerations  upon 
which  he  relies  may  convince  them  that  government  does  not 
exist  to  suppress  robbery,  but  will  not  convince  them  that 
abolition  of  the  State  will  obviate  the  necessity  of  dealing 
violently  with  the  other  and  more  ordinary  kinds  of  govern- 
ment of  which  common  robbery  is  one.  For,  even  though 
they  be  led  to  admit  that  the  disappearance  of  the  robber 
State  must  eventually  induce  the  disappearance  of  all  other 
robbers,  they  will  remember  that  effects,  however  certain,  are 
not  always  immediate,  and  that,  pending  the  consummation, 
there  are  often  serious  difficulties  that  must  be  confronted. 

(4)  If  Mr.  Robinson  still  maintains  that  doing  violence  to 
those  who  let  us  alone  is  precisely  parallel  to  doing  violence 
to  those  who  assault  us,  I  can  only  modestly  hint  once  more 
that  I  have  a  better  eye  for  an  angle  than  he  has. 

U)  Not  so,  by  any  means.  As  long  as  nearly  all  people  are 
agreed  in  their  identification  of  the  great  majority  of  actions 
as  harmonious  with  or  counter  to  equal  liberty,  and  as  long  as 
an  increasing  number  of  people  are  extending  this  agreement 
in  identification  over  a  still  larger  field  of  conduct  the  defi- 
nition of  invasion  as  the  infringement  of  equal  liberty,  tar 
from  being  vain,  will  remain  an  important  factor  in  political 

progress.  ,  . 

(6)  Because  we  see  no  imperative  and  overwhelming  neces- 
sity for  an  immediate  settlement  of  the  question  of  copy- 
right, and  because  we  think  that  the  verdict  of  reason  is 
preferable  to  the  verdict  of  violence  in  all  doubtful  cases 
where  we  can  afford  to  wait. 

(7)  It  seems  that  there  are  cases  m  which,  according  to  Mr. 
Robinson,  we  may  resort  to  violence.  It  is  now  my  turn  to 
ask  Why  ?  If  he  favors  violence  in  one  case,  why  not  m  all  t 
I  can  see  why,  but  not  from  his  standpoint.  For  my  part,  I 
don't  care  a  straw  whether,  when  Mr.  Robinson  sees  fit  to  use 
violence,  he  acts  under  protest  or  from  principle^  The  mam 
question  is  :  Does  he  think  it  wise  under  some  circumstances 
to  use  violence,  or  is  he  so  much  of  a  practical  Arcnist  that 
he  would  not  save  his  child  from  otherwise  inevitable  murder 
by  splitting  open  the  murderer's  head  ? 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND  THE  STATE.  8l 


MR.  PENTECOST  AN  ABETTOR  OF  GOVERNMENT. 

[Liberty,  November  14,  1891.] 

Because  I  claim  and  teach  that  Anarchism  justifies  the  ap- 
plication of  force  to  invasive  men  and  condemns  force  only 
when  applied  to  non-invasive  men,  Mr.  Pentecost  declares  that 
the  only  difference  between  Anarchism  on  the  one  hand  and 
Monarchism  or  Republicanism  on  the  other  is  the  difference 
between  the  popular  conception  of  invasion  and  my  own.  If 
I  were  to  assert  that  biology  is  the  science  which  deals  with 
the  phenomena  of  living  matter  and  excludes  all  phenomena 
of  matter  that  is  not  living,  and  if  Mr.  Pentecost  were  to  say 
that,  assuming  this,  the  only  difference  between  the  biological 
sciences  and  the  abiological  is  the  difference  between  the  pop- 
ular conception  of  life  and  my  own,  he  would  take  a  position 
precisely  analogous  to  that  which  he  takes  on  the  subject  of 
Anarchism,  and  the  one  position  would  be  every  whit  as 
sensible  and  every  whit  as  foolish  as  the  other.  The  limit  be- 
tween invasion  and  non-invasion,  like  the  limit  between  life 
and  non-life,  is  not,  at  least  in  our  present  comprehension  of 
it,  a  hard  and  fast  line.  But  does  it  follow  from  this  that  in- 
vasion and  non^invasion,  life  and  non-life,  are  identical?  Not 
at  all.  The  indefinite  character  of  the  boundary  does  no 
more  than  show  that  a  small  proportion  of  the  phenomena  of 
society,  like  a  small  proportion  of  the  phenomena  of  matter, 
still  resist  the  respective  distinguishing  tests  to  which  by  far 
the  greater  portion  of  such  phenomena  have  yielded  and  by 
which  they  have  been  classified.  And  however  embarrassing 
in  practice  may  be  the  reluctance  of  frontier  phenomena  to 
promptly  arrange  themselves  on  either  side  of  the  border  in 
obedience  to  the  tests,  it  is  still  more  embarrassing  in  theory 
to  attempt  to  frame  any  rational  view  of  society  or  life  with- 
out recognition  of  these  tests,  by  which,  broadly  speaking, 
distinctions  have  been  established.  Some  of  the  most  mani- 
fest distinctions  have  never  been  sharply  drawn. 

If  Mr.  Pentecost  will  view  the  subject  in  this  light  and  fol- 
low out  the  reasoning  thus  entered  upon,  he  will  soon  discover 
that  my  conception  or  misconception  of  what  constitutes  in- 
vasion does  not  at  all  affect  the  scientific  differentiation  of 
Anarchism  from  Archism.  I  may  err  grievously  in  attributing 
an  invasive  or  a  non-invasive  character  to  a  given  social  phe- 
nomenon, and,  if  I  act  upon  my  error,  I  shall  act  Archisti- 
caliy;  but  the  very  fact  that  I  am  acting,  not  blindly  and  at 


82 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


hap-hazard,  but  in  furtherance  of  an  endeavor  to  conform  to 
a  generalization  which  is  the  product  of  long  experience  and 
accumulating  evidence,  adds  infinitely  to  the  probability  that 
I  shall  discover  my  error.  In  trying  to  draw  more  clearly  the 
line  between  invasion  and  non-invasion,  all  of  us,  myself  in- 
cluded, are  destined  to  make  many  mistakes,  but  by  our  very 
mistakes  we  shall  approach  our  goal.  Only  Mr.  Pentecost  and 
those  who  think  with  him  take  themselves  out  of  the  path  of 
progress  by  assuming  that  it  is  possible  to  live  in  harmony 
simply  by  ignoring  the  fact  of  friction  and  the  causes  thereof. 
The  no-rule  which  Mr.  Pentecost  believes  in  would  amount 
in  practice  to  submission  to  the  rule  of  the  invasive  man. 
No-rule,  in  the  sense  of  no-force-in-any-case,  is  a  self-contra- 
diction. The  man  who  attempts  to  practise  it  becomes  an 
abettor  of  government  by  declining  to  resist  it.  So  long  as 
Mr.  Pentecost  is  willing  to  let  the  criminal  ride  roughshod 
over  him  and  me,  his  "  preference  not  to  be  ruled  at  all  "  is 
nothing  but  a  beatific  revelling  in  sheerest  moonshine  and 
Utopia. 


THE  PHILOSOPHER  OF  THE  DISEMBODIED. 

{Liberty,  June  8,  1889.] 

Connected  with  the  Massachusetts  branch  of  the  National 
Woman  Suffrage  Association  is  a  body  of  women  calling  itself 
the  Boston  Political  Class,  the  object  of  which  is  the  prepara- 
tion of  its  members  for  the  use  of  the  ballot.  On  Thursday 
evening,  May  30,  this  class  was  addressed  in  public  by  Dr. 
Wm.  T.  Harris,  the  Concord  philosopher,  on  the  subject  of 
State  Socialism,  Anarchism,  and  free  competition.  Let  me 
say,  parenthetically,  to  these  ladies  that,  if  they  really  wish  to 
learn  how  to  use  the  ballot,  they  would  do  well  to  apply  for 
instruction,  not  to  Dr.  Harris,  but  to  ex-Supervisor  Bill  Sim- 
mons, or  Johnny  O'Brien  of  New  York,  or  Senator  Matthew 
Quay,  or  some  leading  Tammany  brave,  or  any  of  the  "  bosses  " 
who  rule  city,  State,  and  nation  ;  for,  the  great  object  of  the 
ballot  being  to  test  truth  by  counting  noses  and  to  prove  your 
opponents  wrong  by  showing  them  to  be  less  numerous  than 
your  friends,  and  these  men  having  practically  demonstrated 
that  they  are  masters  of  the  art  of  rolling  up  majorities  at  the 
polls,  they  can  teach  the  members  of  the  Boston  Political  Class 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE. 


83 


a  trick  or  two  by  which  they  can  gain  numerical  supremacy, 
while  Dr.  Harris,  in  the  most  favorable  view  of  the  case,  can 
only  elevate  their  intelligence  and  thereby  fix  them  more  hope- 
lessly in  a  minority  that  must  be  vanquished  in  a  contest  where 
ballots  instead  of  brains  decide  the  victory. 

But  let  that  pass.  I  am  not  concerned  now  with  these  ex- 
cellent ladies,  but  with  Dr.  Harris's  excellent  address  ;  for  it 
was  excellent,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  intended  it 
partly  as  a  blow  at  Anarchism.  Instead  of  being  such  a  blow, 
the  discourse  was  really  an  affirmation  of  Anarchism  almost 
from  beginning  to  end,  at  least  in  so  far  as  it  dealt  with  prin- 
ciples, and  departed  from  Anarchism  only  in  two  or  tiiree 
mistaken  attempts  to  illustrate  the  principles  laid  down  and 
to  identify  existing  society  with  them  as  expressive  of  them. 

After  positing  the  proposition-  that  the  object  of  society  is 
*the  production  of  self-conscious  intelligence  in  its  highest 
form,  or,  in  other  words,  the  most  perfect  individuality,  the 
lecturer  spent  the  first  half  of  his  time  in  considering  State  So- 
cialism from  this  standpoint.  He  had  no  difficulty  in  show- 
ing that  the  absorption  of  enterprise  by  the  State  is  indeed  a 
"  looking  backward," — a  very  long  look  backward  at  that  com- 
munism which  was  the  only  form  of  society  known  to  pri- 
mitive man ;  at  that  communism  which  purchases  material 
equality  at  the  expense  of  the  destruction  of  liberty  ;  at  that 
communism  out  of  which  evolution,  with  its  tendency  toward 
individuality,  has  been  gradually  lifting  mankind  for  thousands 
of  years  ;  at  that  communism  which,  by  subjecting  the  indi- 
vidual rights  of  life  and  property  to  industrial  tyranny,  thereby 
renders  necessary  a  central  political  tyranny  to  at  least  par- 
tially secure  the  right  to  life  and  make  possible  the  continuance 
of  some  semblance  of  social  existence.  The  lecturer  took  the 
position  that  civil  society  is  dependent  upon  freedom  in  pro- 
duction, distribution,  and  consumption,  and  that  such  freedom 
is  utterly  incompatible  with  State  Socialism,  which  in  its  ulti- 
mate implies  the  absolute  control  of  all  these  functions  by 
arbitrary  power  as  a  substitute  for  economic  law.  Therefore 
Dr.  Harris,  setting  great  value  upon  civil  society,  has  no  use 
for  State  Socialism.  Neither  have  the  Anarchists.  Thus  far, 
then,  the  Anarchists  and  this  teacher  of  the  Boston  Political 
Class  walk  hand  in  hand. 

Dr.  Harris,  however,  labors  under  a  delusion  that  just  at  this 
point  he  parts  company  with  us.  As  we  follow  his  argument 
further,  we  shall  see  if  this  be  true.  The  philosophy  of  society, 
he  continued  in  substance,  is  coextensive  with  a  ground  covered 
by  four  institutions, — namely,  the  family,  civil  society,  the  State, 


84  INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 

and  the  Church.    Proceeding  then  to  define  the  specific  pur- 
poses of  these  institutions,  he  declared  that  the  object  of 
the  family  is  to  assure  the  reproduction  of  individuals  and 
prepare  them,  by  guidance  through  childhood,  to  become  rea- 
sonable beings;  that  the  object  of  civil  society  is  to  enable 
each  individual  to  reap  advantage  from  the  powers  of  all 
other  individuals  through  division  of  labor  free  exchange, 
and  other  economic  means  ;  that  the  object  of  the  State  is  to 
protect  each  individual  against  aggression  and  secure  him  in 
his  freedom  as  long  as  he  observes  the  equal  freedom  of  others  ; 
and  that  the  object  of  the  Church  (using  the  term  m  its  broad- 
est sense,  and  not  as  exclusively  applicable  to  the  various 
religious  bodies)  is  to  encourage  the  investigation  and  perfec- 
tion of  science' literature,  the  fine  arts,  and  all  those  higher 
humanities  that  make  life  worth  living  and  tend  to  the  eleva- 
tion and  completion  of  self-conscious  intelligence  or  individu- 
ality.   Each  of  these  objects,  in  the  view  of  the  lecturer,  is 
necessary  to  the  existence  of  any  society  worthy  of  the  name 
and  the  omission  of  anyone  of  them  disastrous,    lie  State 
Socialists,  he  asserted  truthfully,  would  rum  the  whole  struc- 
ture by  omitting  civil  society,  whereas  the  Anarchists,  he  as- 
serted erroneously,  would  equally  ruin  it  by  omitting ;  the  State. 
Right  here  lies  Dr.  Harris's  error,  and  it  is  the  most :  vulgar  of 
all  errors  in  criticism.-that  of  treating  the  ideas  of  others  from 
the  standpoint,  not  of  their  definitions  but  of  your  own.  Dr. 
Harris  hears  that  the  Anarchists  wish  to  abolish  the  State 
and  straightway  he  jumps  to  the  conclusion  that  they  wish  to 
abolish  what  he"  defines  as  the  State.    And  this  too,  m  spite 
of  the  fact  that,  to  my  knowledge,  he  listened  not  long  ago  to 
the  reading  of  a  paper  by  an  Anarchist  from  which  it  was 
clearly  to  be  gathered I  that  the  Anarchists  have  no  quarrel  with 
any  ins  itution  that  contents  itself  with  enforcing  thelawri 
equal  freedom,  and  that  they  oppose  the  State  only  after  first 
defining  it  as  an  institution  that  claims  authority  oyer  the  non- 
aggressle  individual  and  enforces  that  authority  by  physical 
force  or  by  means  that  are  effective  only  because  they  can  and 
wTn  be  backed  by  physical  force  if  necessary   Far  from  omitting 
X  State  as  Dr.  Harris  defines  it,  the  Anarchists  expressly  favor 
uch  an  institution,  by  whoever  name  it  may  be  calle^asjong 
as  its  raison  d'etre  continues  ;  and  certainly  Dr.  Harris  would 
no  'demand  its  preservation  after  it  ^d  become  supeguous 

In  principle,  then,  are  not  the  Anarchists  and  Dr.  Harris  in 
as  eernenr  a  every  essential  point?  It  certainly  seems  so. 
Tdc .not know  an  Anarchist  that  would  not  accept  every 
division  of  his  social  map. 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE.  85 


Defining  the  object  of  the  family  as  he  defines  it,  the 
Anarchists  believe  in  the  family  ;  only  they  insist  that  free 
competition  and  experiment  shall  always  be  allowed  in  order 
that  it  may  be  determined  what  form  of  family  best  secures 
this  object. 

Defining  the  object  of  civil  society  as  he  defines  it,  the  Ar- 
archists  believe  in  civil  society ;  only  they  insist  that  the  free- 
dom of  civil  society  shall  be  complete  instead  of  partial. 

Defining  the  object  of  the  State  as  he  defines  it,  the  Anar- 
chists believe  in  the  State  ;  only  they  insist  that  the  greater  part, 
if  not  all,  of  the  necessity  for  its  existence  is  the  result  of  an 
artificial  limitation  of  the  freedom  of  civil  society,  and  that 
the  completion  of  industrial  freedom  may  one  day  so  harmo- 
nize individuals  that  it  will  no  longer  be  necessary  to  provide 
a  guarantee  of  political  freedom. 

Defining  the  object  of  the  Church  as  he  defines  it,  the  An- 
archists most  certainly  believe  in  the  Church  ;  only  they  insist 
that  all  its  work  shall  be  purely  voluntary,  and  that  its  discov- 
eries and  achievements,  however  beneficial,  shall  not  be  im- 
posed upon  the  individual  by  authority. 

But  there  is  a  point,  unhappily,  where  the  Anarchists  and  Dr. 
Harris  do  part  company,  and  that  point  is  reached  when  he 
declares  or  assumes  or  leaves  it  to  be  inferred  that. the  present 
form  of  the  family  is  the  form  that  best  secures  the  objects  of 
the  family,  and  that  no  attempt  at  any  other  form  is  to  be  tol- 
erated, although  evidence  of  the  horrors  engendered  by  the 
prevailing  family  life  is  being  daily  spread  before  our  eyes  in 
an  ever-increasing  volume  ;  that  the  present  form  of  civil  so- 
ciety is  the  embodiment  of  complete  economic  freedom,  al- 
though it  is  undeniable  that  the  most  important  freedoms,  those 
without  which  all  other  freedoms  are  of  little  or  no  avail, — the 
freedom  of  banking  and  the  freedom  to  take  possession  of  un- 
occupied land, — exist  now  here  in  thecivilized  world  ;  that  the 
existing  State  does  nothing  but  enforce  the  law  of  equal  free- 
dom, although  it  is  unquestionably  based  upon  a  compulsory 
tax  that  is  itself  a  denial  of  equal  freedom,  and  is  daily  adding 
to  ponderous  volumes  of  statutes  the  bulk  of  which  are  either 
sumptuary  and  meddlesome  in  character  or  devised  in  the  in- 
terest of  privilege  and  monopoly  ;  and  that  the  existing  Church 
carries  on  its  work  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  free 
competition,  in  spite  of  the  indubitable  fact  that,  in  its  various 
fields  of  religion,  science,  literature,  and  the  arts,  it  is  endowed 
with  innumerable  immunities,  favors,  prerogatives,  and  li- 
censes, with  the  extent  and  stringency  of  which  it  is  still 
unsatisfied. 


86 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


All  these  assumptions  clearly  show  that  Dr.  Harris  is  a  man 
of  theory,  and  not  of  practice.    He  knows  nothing  but  disem- 
bodied principles.    Consequently,   when  the  State  Socialist 
proposes  to  embody  a  principle  antagonistic  to  his,  he  recog- 
nizes it  as  such  and  demolishes  it  by  well-directed  arguments. 
But  this  same  antagonistic  principle,  so  far  as  it  is  already  em- 
bodied, is  unrecognizable  by  him.    As  soon  as  it  becomes  in- 
carnate, he  mistakes  it  for  his  own.    No  matter  what  shape 
it  has  taken,  be  it  a  banking  monopoly,  or  a  land  monopoly,  or 
a  national  post-office  monopoly,  or  a  common  school  system, 
or  a  compulsory  tax,  or  a  setting-up  of  non-aggressive  individ- 
uals to  be  shot  at  by  an  enemy,  he  hastens  to  offer  it  one 
hand,  while  he  waves  the  flag  of  free  competition  with  the 
other     In  consequence  of  its  fleshly  wrappings,  he  is  consti- 
tutionally incapable  of  combating  the  status  quo.  For -  this 
reason  he  is  not  an  altogether  competent  teacher,  and  is  liable 
to  confuse  the  minds  of  the  ambitious  ladies  belonging  to  the 
Boston  Political  Class. 


THE  WOES  OF  AN  ANARCHIST. 

[Liberty,  January  25,  1890.] 

harmonies  of  ^  °r*a^^^^^  What  then  was  I  to  do  ?    I  put 

piness  of  an  esteemed  fel low  street^.  o{  the 

on  my  hat  and  sa  lied  forth .  into  the  s^th  a        y       ^  & 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND  THE  STATE. 


S7 


a  view  to  gain.  I  did  not  hand  him  the  expected  penny,  but  I  briefly — 
very  briefly — expressed  a  hope  that  an  infinite  being  would  be  pleased  to 
consign  him  to  infinite  torture,  and  passed  on.  I  wandered  through  street 
after  street,  all  full  of  houses  painted  in  different  shades  of  custard -color, 
toned  with  London  fog,  and  all  just  sufficiently  like  one  another  to  make 
one  wish  that  they  were  either  quite  alike  or  very  different.  And  I 
wondered  whether  something  might  not  be  done  to  compel  all  the  owners 
to  paint  at  the  same  time  and  with  the  same  tints.  At  last  I  reached 
a  place  where  the  road  was  rendered  impassable  by  a  crowd  which  had 
gathered  to  listen  to  an  orator  who  was  shouting  from  an  inverted  tub. 
He  was  explaining  that  many  years  ago  Jesus  died  to  save  sinners  like  us, 
and  therefore  the  best  thing  we  could  do  was  to  deprive  the  publicans 
of  their  licenses  without  compensation.  I  ventured  to  remark  that, 
although  this  might  be  perfectly  true,  still  I  wanted  to  get  into  the 
country  along  the  common  highway,  and  that  the  crowd  he  had  collected 
prevented  me  from  doing  so.  -  He  replied  that  he  knew  my  sort,  what- 
ever that  may  mean  ;  but  his  words  seem  to  have  acted  like  magic  on  his 
hearers,  for,  although  I  did  at  last  elbow  my  way  through  the  throng,  it 
was  not  without  damage  to  the  aforementioned  hat.  It  was  a  relief  to  reach 
the  country  and  to  sit  down  by  a  stream  and  watch  the  children  gathering 
blackberries.  I  was,  however,  surprised  to  find  that  the  berries  were  still 
pink  and  far  from  ripe.  "Why  don't  you  wait  till  they  are  ripe?"  I 
asked.  "  Coz  if  we  did  there  would  be  none  left  by  then,"  was  the  some- 
what puzzling  reply.  "  But  surely,  if  you  all  agreed  to  wait,  it  could  be 
managed,"  I  said.  "  Oh  yes,  sir,"  responded  a  little  girl,  with  a  pitying 
laugh  at  my  simplicity,  "  but  the  others  always  come  and  gather  them 
just  before  they  are  ripe."  I  don't  quite  know  who  the  others  are,  but 
surely  something  ought  to  be  done  to  put  a  stop  to  this  extravagant  haste 
and  ruinous  competition.  The  result  of  the  present  system  is  that  nobody 
gets  any  ripe  blackberries.  I  mentioned  the  subject  to  an  old  gentleman 
who  was  fishing  in  the  rivulet  ;  "  Exactly  so,"  said  he,  "it  is  just  the 
same  with  fish.  You  see  there  is  a  close  season  for  salmon  and  some 
sorts  ;  but  those  scoundrels  are  steadily  destroying  the  rest  by  catching 
the  immature  fish,  instead  of  waiting  till  they  are  fit  for  anything.  I  sup- 
pose they  think  that  they  will  not  have  the  luck  to  catch  them  again,  and 
that  a  sprat  in  hand  is  worth  a  herring  in  a  bush."  I  admitted  the  force 
and  beauty  of  the  metaphor,  and  proceeded  on  my  journey. 

Beginning  to  feel  hungry,  I  made  tracks  for  the  nearest  village,  where 
I  knew  I  should  find  an  inn.  A  few  hundred  yards  from  the  houses  I 
observed  a  party  of  hulking  fellows  stripping  on  the  bank  with  a  view  to 
a  plunge  and  a  swim.  It  struck  me  they  were  rather  close  to  the  road, 
but  I  nevertheless  thought  it  my  duty  to  resent  the  interference  of  a  police- 
man who  appeared  on  the  scene  and  rather  roughly  ordered  the  fellows 
off.  "  I  suppose,"  said  I,  "  that  free  citizens  have  a  right  to  wash  in  a  free 
stream."  But  the  representative  of  law  and  order  fixed  upon  me  a  pair  of 
boiled  eyes,  and,  without  trusting  his  tongue,  pointed  to  a  blackboard 
stuck  on  a  post  some  little  way  off.  I  guessed  his  meaning  and  went  on. 
When  I  reached  the  inn,  I  ordered  a  chop  and  potatoes  and  a  pint  of 
bitter,  and  was  surprised  to  find  that  some  other  persons  were  served 
before  me,  although  they  had  come  in  later.  Presently  I  observed  one 
of  them  in  the  act  of  tipping  the  waiter.  "  Excuse  me,  sir,"  said  I,  "  but 
that  is  not  fair  ;  you  are  bribing  that  man  to  give  you  an  undue  share  of 
attention.  I  presume  you  also  tip  porters  at  a  railway  station,  and  per- 
haps custom-house  officers?"  "Of  course  I  do;  what's  that  to  you  ? 
Mind  your  own  business,"  was  the  reply  I  received.     I  had  evidently 


88 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


made  myself  unpopular  with  these  gentlemen.  One  of  them  was  chewing 
a  quid  and  spitting  about  the  floor.  One  was  walking  up  and  down  the 
room  in  a  pair  of  creaking  boots,  and  taking  snuff  the  while  ;  and  a  third 
was  voraciously  tackling  a  steak,  and  removing  lumps  of  gristie  from  his 
mouth  to  his  plate  in  the  palm  of  his  hand.  After  each  gulp  of  porter,  he 
seemed  to  take  a  positive  pride  in  yielding  to  the  influences  of  flatulence 
in  a  series  of  reports  which  might  have  raised  Lazarus.  My  own  rations 
appeared  at  last,  and  I  congratulated  myself  that,  by  the  delay,  I  had  been 
spared  the  torture  of  feeding  in  company  with  ^Eolus,  who  was  already 
busy  with  the  toothpick,  when  to  my  dismay  he  produced  a  small  black 
clay  pipe  and  proceeded  to  stuff  it  with  black  shag.  "  There  is,  I  believe, 
a  smoking-room  in  the  house,"  I  remarked  deprecatingly  ;  "otherwise  I 
would  not  ask  you  to  allow  me  to  finish  my  chop  before  lighting  your 
pipe  here  ;  don't  you  think  tobacco  rather  spoils  one's  appetite  ?"  I 
thought  I  had  spoken  politely,  but  all  the  answer  I  got  was  this,  "Look 
'ere,  governor,  if  this  'ere  shanty  ain't  good  enough  for  the  like  of  you, 
you'd  better  walk  on  to  the  Star  and  Garter."  And,  awaiting  my  reply 
with  an  expression  of  mingled  contempt  and  defiance,  he  proceeded  to 
emphasize  his  argument  by  boisterously  coughing  across  the  table  with- 
out so  much  as  raising  his  hand.  I  am  not  particularly  squeamish,  but 
I  draw  the  line  at  victuals  that  have  been  coughed  over.  To  all  practical 
purposes,  my  lunch  was  gone, — stolen.  I  looked  round  for  sympathy, 
but  the  feeling  of  the  company  was  clearly  against  me.  The  gentleman 
in  the  creaking  boots  laughed,  and,  walking  up  to  the  table,  laid  his  hand 
upon  it  in  the  manner  of  an  orator  in  labor.  He  paused  to  marshal  his 
thoughts,  and  I  had  an  opportunity  of  observing  him  with  several  senses 
at  once.  His  nails  were  in  deep  mourning,  his  clothes  reeked  of  stale 
tobacco  and  perspiration,  and  his  breath  of  onions  and  beer.  His  face 
was  broad  and  rubicund,  but  not  ill-featured,  and  his  expression  bore  the 
stamp  of  honesty  and  independence.  No  one  could  mistake  him  for 
other  than  he  was, — a  sturdy  British  farmer.  After  about  half  a  minute's 
incubation,  his  ideas  found  utterance.  "I'll  tell  you  what  it  is,  sir,"  he 
said,  "  I  don't  know  who  you  are,  but  this  is  a  free  country,  and  it's 
market  day  an'  all."  I  could  not  well  dispute  any  of  these  propositions, 
and,  inasmuch  as  they  appeared  to  be  conclusive  to  the  minds  of  the 
company,  my  position  was  a  difficult  one.  "I  do  not  question  your 
rights,  friend,"  I  ventured  to  say  at  last,  "but  I  think  a  little  consider- 
ation for  other  people's  feelings.  .  .  eh?"  "Folks  shouldn't  have  feel- 
ings that  isn't  usual  and  proper,  and  if  they  has,  they  should  go  where 
their  feelings  is  usual  and  proper,  that's  me,"  was  the  reply  ;  and  it  is  not 
without  philosophy.  The  same  idea  had  already  dimly  shimmered  in  my 
own  mind  ;  besides,  was  I  not  an  individualist  ?  "  You  are  right,  friend," 
said  I,  "  so  I  will  wish  you  good  morning  and  betake  myself  elsewhere.*" 
"Good  morning,"  said  the  farmer,  offering  his  hand,  and  "Good  rid- 
dance," added  the  gentleman  with  the  toothpick. 

As  I  emerged  from  the  inn,  not  a  little  crest-fallen,  a  cat  shot  across 
the  road  followed  by  a  yelping  terrier,  who  in  his  turn  was  urged  on  by 
two  rosy  little  boys.  "Stop  that  game,"  I  shouted,  "what  harm  has 
pussy  done  you?"  The  lads  did  stop,  but  the  merry  twinkle  in  their 
eyes  betokened  a  fixed  intention  to  renew  the  sport  as  soon  as  old  Mar- 
plot was  out  of  the  way.  But  the  incident  was  not  thrown  away  on  a 
pale  man  with  a  long  black  coat  and  a  visage  to  match.  "  It  is  of  no 
use,  my  dear  sir,"  said  he,  shaking  his  head  and  smiling  drearily,  "  it  is 
the  nature  of  the  dog  to  worry  cats  ;  and  it  is  the  nature  of  the  boys  to 
urge  on  the  dog  ;  we  are  all  born  in  sin  and  the  children  of  wrath.  I 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  89 


used  to  enjoy  cat-hunts  myself  before  I  was  born  again.  You  must  edu- 
cate, sir,  educate  before  you  can  reform.  Mark  my  words,  sir,  the 
school-board  is  the  ladder  to  the  skies."  "  The  school-board  !"  I  ejacu- 
lated ;  "you  do  not  mean  to  say  you  approve  of  State-regulated  educa- 
tion ?  May  I  ask  whether  you  also  approve  of  a  State  religion — a  State 
church  ?"  I  thought  this  was  a  poser,  but  I  was  mistaken.  "  The  two 
things  are  not  in  pari  materia"  replied  the  Dissenting  minister  (for 
there  was  no  mistaking  his  species);  "the  established  church  is  the  upas- 
tree  which  poisons  the  whole  forest.  It  was  planted  by  the  hand  of  a 
deluded  aristocracy.  The  school-board  was  planted  by  the  people."  "  I 
do  not  see  that  it  much  signifies  who  planted  the  tree,  so  long  as  it  is 
planted;  but,  avoiding  metaphor,  the  point  is  this,"  said  I  emphatically  : 
"is  one  fraction  of  the  population  to  dictate  to  the  other  fraction  what 
they  are  to  believe,  what  they  are  to  learn,  what  they  are  to  do?  And  I 
do  not  care  whether  the  dictating  fraction  is  the  minority  or  the  major- 
ity. The  principle  is  the  same — despotism."  The  man  of  God  started. 
"  What  !  "  he  cried,  "are  we  to  have  no  laws  ?  Is  every  man  to  do  that 
which  is  right  in  his  own  eyes  ?  Are  you  aware,  sir,  that  you  are  preach- 
ing Anarchy  ?  "  It  was  now  my  turn  to  double.  "  Anarchy  is  a  strong 
expression,"  said  I,  most  disingenuously;  "all  I  meant  to  say  is  that 
the  less  the  State  interferes  between  man  and  man,  the  better  ;  surely 
you  will  admit  that  ?  "  And  now  I  saw  from  my  interlocutor's  contracted 
brow  and  compressed  lips  that  an  answer  was  forthcoming  which  would 
knock  all  the  wind  out  of  me.  And  I  was  right.  "Do  you  see  that 
house  with  the  flags  on  the  roof  and  that  sculptured  group  over  the  en- 
trance representing  the  World,  the  Flesh,  and  the  Devil?"  "  I  see  the 
house,  but,  if  you  will  pardon  me,  I  think  the  group  is  intended  for  the 
Three  Graces."  The  parson  shot  an  angry  glance  at  me  ;  he  knew  well 
enough  what  the  figures  were  meant  for  ;  but  even  the  godly  have  their 
sense  of  grim  humor.  He  continued  :  "That  is  the  porch  of  Hell  ;  and 
there  at  the  corner  yawns  Hell  itself  :  they  are  commonly  called  Old 
Joe's  Theatre  of  Varieties,  and  the  Green  Griffin  :  but  we  prefer  to  call 
them  by  their  right  names  "  "  Dear  me  !"  I  said,  somewhat  appalled  by 
the  earnestness  of  his  manner,  "  are  they  very  dreadful  places  ?"  I  was 
beginning  to  feel  quite  "  creepy,"  and  could  almost  smell  the  brimstone. 
But,  without  heeding  my  query,  he  continued  :  "  Are  we  to  look  on  with 
folded  hands,  while  innocent  young  girls  crowd  into  that  sink  of  iniquity, 
listen  to  ribald  and  obscene  songs,  witness  semi-nude  and  licentious 
dances,  meet  with  dissolute  characters,  and  finally  enter  the  jaws  of  the 
Green  Griffin  to  drink  of  the  stream  that  maddens  the  soul,  that  deadens 
the  conscience,  and  that  fires  the  passions?"  Here  he  paused  for  breath, 
and  then  in  a  sepulchral  whisper  he  added  :  "  And  what  follows  ?  What 
follows?"  This  question  he  asked  several  times,  each  time  in  a  lower 
key,  with  his  eyes  fixed  on  mine  as  though  he  expected  to  read  the 
answer  at  the  back  of  my  skull  on  the  inside.  "  I  will  tell  you  what  fol- 
lows," he  continued,  to  my  great  relief;  "the  end  is  Mrs.  Fletcher's." 
There  was  something  so  grotesque  in  this  anti-cMmax  that  I  gave  sudden 
vent  to  a  short  explosive  laugh,  like  the  snap  of  the  electric  spark.  I 
could  not  help  it,  and  I  was  truly  sorry  to  be  so  rude,  and,  in  order  to 
avoid  mutual  embarrassment,  I  fairly  bolted  down  the  street,  leaving  my 
teacher  transfixed  with  pious  horror.  To  a  denizen  of  the  village,  doubt- 
less, long  association  had  imbued  the  name  of  Mrs.  Fletcher  with  a  lurid 
connotation,  like  unto  the  soothing  influence  of  that  blessed  word  Mes- 
opotamia,— only  in  the  opposite  direction. 

I  was  now  in  the  position  of  the  happy  man  of  fiction  "  with  a  pocket 


9° 


INSTEAD  OF   A  HOOK. 


full  of  money  and  a  cellar  full  of  beer  "  ;  only  my  cellar  was  nine  miles 
off  and  my  money  was  inconvertible,  to  all  practical  intents  and  purposes. 
There  was  no  other  inn  ;  I  dare  not  try  the  Green  Griffin,  and  I  did  not 
know  the  way  to  "  Mrs.  Fletcher's."  I  wanted  to  get  back  to  town.  "  Is 
there  a  railway  station  anywhere  near  here?"  I  inquired  of  a  bald- 
headed  man,  who  was  removing  flower-pots  from  his  front  parlor  win- 
dow-sill. "  Railway  station  ?  "  he  repeated  with  a  snigger,  "  not  much  ; 
how  should  there  be  a  railway  station?"  "And  pray  why  not?"  I 
asked.  "You  may  well  ask,"  replied  the  bald-headed  man  ;  "if  you 
knew  these  parts,  you  would  know  that  half  the  land  between  here 
and  town  belongs  to  Lord  Brownmead  ;  and  he  opposed  the  bill  which 
the  Company  brought  into  Parliament  ;  so  of  course  the  lords  threw  it 
out  and  refused  the  concession  :  that  is  why  there  is  no  railway  station. 
That  is  why  you  and  I  may  walk  or  creep  or  go  in  balloons.  I  wonder 
his  lordship  or  his  lordship's  ancestors  ever  allowed  the  high  road  to  be 
made.  Why  should  not  you  and  I  grub  our  way  underground,  like 
moles  ?  It  is  good  enough  for  us,  1  suppose.  Railway  station,  indeed  !  " 
And  down  came  a  flower-pot  with  a  crash,  just  to  accentuate  the  absurd- 
ity of  the  idea.  "  Lord  Brownmead  belongs  to  the  Liberty  and  Prop- 
erty Defence  League,  you  know,  and  he  says  no  one  has  a  right  to  inter- 
fere with  his  liberty  to  do  what  he  likes  with  his  own  land.  Quite  right  ; 
quite  right,"  he  continued  in  the  same  tone  of  bitter  irony,  "  nothing  like 
liberty  and  property  !  "  This  was  an  awkward  dig  for  me.  I  had  always 
believed  in  liberty,  and  I  was  thinking  of  joining  Lord  Brownmead's 
association.  "  Perhaps  there  is  a  tramway  or  some  other  sufficient  means 
of  rapid  communication,"  I  suggested,  "  in  which  case  it  may  be  that  a 
railway  is  not  imperatively  necessary."  "  Perhaps  there  is,"  sneered 
the  little  man,  "  perhaps  there  is  ;  only  there  isn't,  don't  you  see,  so 
that's  where  it  is  ;  and  if  you  prefer  walking  or  paying  for  a  fly,  I  am 
sure  I  have  no  objection.  You  have  my  full  permission,  and  Lord 
Brownmead's  too  ;  only  mind  you  don't  take  the  short  cut  by  the  bridle- 
path, because  that  is  closed.  It  appears  it  is  not  a  right  of  way.  It  is 
private,  quite  private.  Don't  forget."  I  did  not  want  the  irascible  little 
man  to  take  me  for  a  toady,  so  I  merely  asked  why  there  was  no  tram- 
way. "Why?"  he  shouted,  and  I  began  to  fear  physical  argument, 
1 '  why  ?  because  Lord  Brownmead  and  the  carriage-folk  say  that  tramways 
cut  up  the  road  and  damage  the  wheels  of  their  carriages  :  that's  why. 
Isn't  it  a  sufficient  reason  for  you  ?  We  lower  ten  thousand  must  walk, 
for  fear  the  upper  ten  should  have  to  pay  for  an  extra  coat  of  paint  at 
the  carriage-builder's.  That's  reasonable,  isn't  it?"  "  I  do  not  know 
that  it  is,  my  dear  sir,"  I  replied,  "  but  after  all  you  know  we  have  a 
right  to  use  the  common  road  in  any  way  for  which  it  was  originally  in- 
tended. They  can  do  no  more.  And  it  does  seem  to  me  that  a  tram- 
way monopolizes  for  the  benefit  of  a  class  (a  large  class,  I  grant  you) 
more  than  its  fair  share  of  the  common  rights  of  way.  Ordinary  traffic 
is  very  much  impeded  by  it,  and  the  rails  do  certainly  cause  damage  and 
annoyance  to  persons  w^ho  never  use  the  public  vehicles.  Trams  may 
be  expedient,  friend,  but  they  certainly  are  not  just."  I  thought  this 
would  have  wound  up  the  little  man  for  at  least  another  quarter  of  an 
hour,  but  who  can  read  the  human  mind  ?  Not  another. word  did  he  utter. 
I  fancy  my  last  remark  had  satisfied  him  that  I  was  a  Tory  or  an  aristocrat 
or  one  of  the  carriage-folk,  and  consequently  beneath  contempt  and  out- 
side the  pale  of  reason.  After  an  awkward  pause,  I  ventured  to  say: 
"  Well,  thank  you,  I  wish  you  good  morning,"  but  even  that  elicited  no 
response,  and  I  walked  slowly  off.  feeling  some  slight  loss  of  dignity. 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  91 


I  presently  ascertained  that  coaches  ran  every  two  hours  from  the  Green 
Griffin  to  the  Royal  Oak  in  London,  a  fact  which  the  bald-headed  man 
had  maliciously  (as  I  thought)  concealed  from  me.  The  line  had  been 
established,  as  the  barman  of  the  Griffin  told  me,  by  Lord  Brownmead 
himself  some  years  ago  and  was  maintained  at  considerable  loss  for  the 
benefit  of  his  tenantry  and  his  poorer  neighbors  ;  and,  as  some  people 
thought,  to  make  amends  for  his  opposition  to  the  tramway.  "  Some- 
times," added  the  barman,  "his  lordship  drives  hisself,  and  then,  O 
lor  !"  There  could  be  no  doubt  from  the  gusto  with  which  the  last 
words  were  pronounced  that  this  individual  derived  a  more  tangible  joy 
from  these  occasions  than  mere  sympathy  with  the  honored  guest  who 
occupied  a  seat  on  the  box  next  the  distinguished  whip  :  and  I  accord- 
ingly slipped  half  a  crown  into  his  hand  a  propos  de  boties.  He  expressed 
no  surprise  whatever,  but  just  as  the  coach  was  about  to  start,  I  found 
myself  the  pampered  ward  of  a  posse  of  ostlers,  grooms,  and  hangers-on, 
who  literally  lifted  me  into  the  envied  seat  and  evinced  the  most  touch- 
ing concern  for  my  comfort  and  safety.  My  knees  were  swathed  in  rugs 
and  the  apron  was  firmly  buckled  across  to  keep  me  warm  and  dry, 
without  any  effort  on  my  part,  and  as  the  leaders  straightened  out  the 
traces  and  Lord  Brownmead  cracked  the  whip,  half-a-dozen  pair  of  eyes 
"  looked  towards  me,"  while  their  owners  drank  what  they  were  pleased 
to  call  my  health,  but  which  looked  to  me  more  like  beer.  As  we  dashed 
down  the  high  street,  a  little  man  with  a  bald  head  cast  a  withering 
glance  at  the  coach  and  its  occupants,  and,  when  his  eyes  met  mine,  his 
expression  said  as  plain  as  words  :  "  /  thought  so."  I  soon  forgot  him, 
and  fell  to  reflecting  on  the  curious  circumstance  that  it  should  be  in  the 
power  of  a  few  potmen  and  stablemen  to  sell  a  nobleman's  company  and 
conversation  for  the  sum  of  half  a  crown.  Yet  so  it  undoubtedly  was. 
And  yet,  after  all,  it  is  hardly  stranger  than  that  these  same  potmen  and 
millions  more  of  their  own  class  should  have  the  power  of  selling  to  the 
highest  bidder  a  six-hundred-and-seventieth  part  of  kingly  prerogative. 
The  divine  right  of  kings  is  just  what  it  ever  was, — the  right  of  the 
strong  to  trample  on  the  weak,  the  absolute  despotism  of  the  effective 
majority.  Only  to-day,  instead  of  being  conferred  in  its  entirety  on  a 
single  person,  it  is  cut  up  into  six  hundred  and  seventy  little  bits,  and 
sold  in  lots  to  the  highest  bidder,  by  a  ring  of  five  millions  of  potmen 
and  their  like. 

Such  is  the  new  democracy,  I  thought,  and  I  might  possibly  have  built 
up  an  essay  on  the  reflection,  when  I  was  suddenly  roused  from  my 
reverie  by  a  grunt  from  the  box-seat.  "  I  beg  your  pardon,"  said  I,  "  I 
did  not  quite  catch  what  you  said."  "  Fine  bird,"  repeated  his  lordship 
in  a  louder  grunt,  and  jerking  his  thumb  in  the  direction  of  a  distant 
coppice.  "  Begin  to-morrow  :  capital  prospect,"  he  continued.  "  Begin 
what  ?  "  I  asked,  a  little  ashamed  of  my  stupidity.  "  October  to-morrow," 
he  replied  ;  "forgotten,  eh?"  "Oh,  ah  !  yes,  of  course,  October  the  1st, 
pheasant-shooting,  I  see,"  I  replied,  as  soon  as  I  caught  his  meaning. 
"  Done  any  good  this  season,  sir?"  he  went  on.  "Good,  how?  what 
good  ?  what  in  ?  I  don't  quite  understand,"  said  I.  "  Moors,  moors,"  ex- 
plained Lord  Brownmead  ;  "  grouse,  sir,  grouse  :  are  you  .  .  .  er  .  .  .  er?" 
"Oh,  I  see,  "  I  hastened  to  reply  ;  "you  mean  have  I  shot  many  grouse 
this  season  ;  no.  I  have  not  been  to  Scotland  this  year  ;  besides,  I  am 
short-sighted  and  do  not  shoot  at  all."  A  man  who  did  not  shoot  was 
hardly  worth  talking  to,  and  a  long  silence  ensued.  At  last  our  Jehu  took 
pity  on  me.  "  Fish  I  suppose  ;  can't  hunt  all  the  year  round."  I  replied 
that  I  did  not  care  for  fishing,  and  that  I  had  no  horses  and  could  not  af- 


92 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


ford  to  hunt.  I  was  fast  becoming  an  object  of  keen  interest.  My  last 
admission  was  followed  by  a  series  of  grunts  at  intervals  of  about  half  a 
minute,  and  at  last  with  a  zeal  and  earnestness  which  he  had  not  yet  ex- 
hibited, and  in  a  louder  key  than  heretofore,  Lord  Brownmead  turned 
upon  me  with  this  query  :  "  Then  what  the  doose  do  you  do  to  kill  time, 
dam  my  ?  "  I  explained  that  I  should  have  no  difficulty  in  killing  double  the 
quantity  of  that  article,  if  I  could  get  it.  "  Out  of  the  24  hours,"  said  I, 
"which  is  the  usual  allowance  in  a  day,  I  sleep  7,  I  work  7,  I  spend 
about  2  over  my  meals,  and  that  only  leaves  8  for  recreation."  "Ay, 
ay,  but  what  do  you  mean  by  recreation,  sir?  That's  just  it,  dammy." 
"Oh,  sometimes  I  go  to  the  theatre,  sometimes  to  some  music-hall  ;  then 
I  go  and  spend  the  evening  with  friends,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing." 
"Balls,  eh?"  "  No,  I  am  not  fond  of  dancing."  "Ha,  humph!  that's 
better  ;  the  tenth  don't  dance,  you  know  ;  never  went  to  a  prancing  party 
in  my  life."  "  Then  last  night  I  went  to  the  Agricultural  Hall  to  hear 
Mr.  Gladstone,"  I  continued.  "  Eh  ?  what  ?  Mr.  who  ?  Be  good  enough 
not  to  mention  that  man's  name  in  my  presence,  sir.  He's  an  under- 
ground fellow,  sir,  an  underground  fellow."  I  was  evidently  on  thin  ice  ; 
so,  in  order  to  turn  the  conversation,  I  remarked  :  "  Pretty  country  this, 
my  lord."  "  Pretty  country  be  damned  !"  was  the  amiable  response  ;  "  it 
is  not  like  the  same  country  since  that  infernal  bill  was  passed."  "  In- 
deed !  What  bill  is  that?"  Lord  Brownmead  cast  upon  me  a  look  of 
ineffable  scorn.  "  What  bill  do  you  suppose,  sir?  Are  you  a  foreigner  ? 
I  should  like  to  feed  that  fellow  on  hares  and  rabbits  for  the  rest  of  his 
life,  sir."  "  Has  the  Hares  and  Rabbits)Act  done  much  harm  ?"  I  inquired. 
"  Done  much  harm  ?  Has  it  revolutionized  the  country  ?  you  mean  ;  has 
it  ruined  the  agriculturist  ?  has  it  set  class  against  class  ?  has  it  turned 
honest  farmers  into  poachers  and  vermin  ?  See  that  spire  in  the  trees 
over  there  ?  Well,  that  poor  devil  used  to  live  on  his  glebe  ;  he  has  about 
fifteen  kids,  all  told  ;  he  used  to  have  rabbit-pie  every  Sunday.  And  now 
there  isn't  a  blessed  rabbit  in  the  place."  I  presumed  he  was  speaking 
of  the  pastor  and  not  the  steeple,  so  I  expressed  sympathy  with  one  who 
was  so  very  much  a  father  under  the  melancholy  circumstances.  "  Still," 
said  I,  "  the  rabbits  used  to  eat  up  a  good  deal  of  the  crops,  I  am  told." 
"  Nonsense,  sir,  nonsense  !  don't  believe  it,"  growled  his  lordship  ; 
"  they  never  ate  a  single  blade  more  than  they  were  worth  ;  and  if  they 
did,  the  devils  got  it  back  out  of  their  rents."  Most  of  my  companion's 
neighbors  appeared  to  be  devils  of  one  sort  or  another,  but  I  think  he 
was  referring  to  the  farmers  on  this  occasion.  "The  devils  have  all  got 
votes,  sir,  that's  what  it  is  ;  they've  all  got  votes.  I  remember  the  time 
when  a  decent  tenant  would  as  soon  have  shot  his  wife  as  a  rabbit.  The 
fact  is,  we  are  moving  a  deal  too  quickly;  downhill  too,  and  no  brake 
on."  I  did  not  wish  to  express  agreement  with  this  sentiment,  so  I 
merely  said  :  "  I  believe  you  are  a  member  of  the  Liberty  and  Property 
DefenceLeague  ?  "  "Very  likely  ;  very  likely  ;  if  it  is  a  good  thing,  got 
up  to  counteract  that  underground  scoundrel.  Yes,  I  think  my  secretary 
did  put  me  down  for  ^"50  a  year.  He  said  they  were  going  to  block  this 
Tenants'  Compensation  Bill,  or  something  or  other.  Good  society,  very; 
ought  to  be  supported  by  honest  men."  "  Then  would  you  not  give  a 
tenant  compensation  for  unexhausted  improvements  ?  "  I  asked.  "  Com- 
pensation !  "  bawled  Lord  Brownmead  ;  "  compensation  for  what?  Good 
God  !  If  one  of  those  fellows  on  my  town  property  put  up  a  conserva- 
tory, or  raised  his  house  a  story,  or  built  a  new  wing,  do  you  suppose  at 
the  end  of  his  lease  he  would  ask  for  compensation  ?  He  would  think 
himself  mad  to  do  it, — mad,  sir.  And  why  should  the  country  be  different 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE. 


93 


from  the  town  ?  eh  ?  The  devils  go  into  the  thing  with  their  eyes  open,  I 
suppose.  A  bargain's  a  bargain,  isn't  it  ?  What  do  they  mean  by 
compensation?  I'd  compensate  them.  Clap  them  into  the  stocks. 
That's  what  they  want.  Depend  upon  it,  sir,"  he  added,  lowering  his 
voice  to  a  husky  whisper,  "the  old  man  is  an  unscrupulous  agitator,  and 
if  I  had  my  way,  I  would  lock  him  up.  If  he's  loose  much  longer,  he 
will  ruin  the  country.  Whoa,  Jerry,  steady  my  pet ;  damn  that  horse  !  " 
We  were  now  drawing  up  at  the  Royal  Oak,  and,  to  say  the  truth,  I  was 
not  altogether  sorry  to  get  out  of  the  atmosphere  of  fine,  old,  crusted 
toryism,  and  walk  along  the  street  among  my  equals.  And  yet,  there 
was  about  the  man  a  rugged  horror  of  mean  meddling  and  State  coddling 
which  one  could  not  but  respect.  "  A  bargain's  a  bargain."  Well,  that 
is  not  very  original ;  but  it  argues  a  healthy  moral  tone.  The  rabbit-pie 
argument  struck  me  as  rather  weak,  but,  take  him  for  all  in  all,  I  have 
met  politicians  who  have  disgusted  me  a  good  deal  more  than  Lord 
Brownmead. 

It  was  now  dusk,  and  the  evening  papers  were  out.  I  stopped  to  read 
the  placards  on  the  wall,  giving  a  summary  of  the  day's  news.  There 
was  nothing  very  new.  "Three  children  murdered  by  a  mother." 
"  Great  fire  in  the  Strand."  "  Loss  of  the  Seagull  with  all  hands."  On 
looking  into  the  details  to  which  these  announcements  referred,  I  found 
that  the  mother  of  the  children  was  a  widow,  who  had  insured  the  lives 
of  her  little  ones  in  the  London  and  County  Fire  Office  for  £10  each, 
and  had  then  pushed  them  into  a  reservoir.  Her  explanation  that 
they  had  fallen  in  while  playing  would  no  doubt  have  met  with  general 
acceptance  but  for  the  discovery  of  marks  of  violence  on  the  neck  of  the 
eldest  daughter,  who  had  evidently  struggled  resolutely  for  life.  Other 
evidence  then  cropped  up,  which  made  it  certain  that  the  children  were 
victims  of  foul  play.  The  editor  of  the  paper  expressed  himself  to  the 
effect  that  no  insurance  company  ought  to  be  allowed  to  insure  the  lives 
of  children,  thus  putting  temptation  in  the  way  of  the  poor.  Oddly 
enough,  the  fire  in  the  Strand  seemed  to  have  resulted  from  a  similar 
motive  and  a  similar  transaction.  A  hairdresser  had  insured  his  fittings 
and  stock  for  ^"150  and  then  set  fire  to  his  shop.  Commenting  on  this, 
the  editor  had  nothing  to  say  about  the  iniquity  of  tempting  people  to 
commit  arson,  but  he  thought  the  State  should  see  that  all  buildings  in  a 
public  street  were  provided  with  concrete  floors  and  asbestos  paint  ;  and 
that  muslin  curtains  should  be  forbidden.  The  Seagull,  laden  with  coals 
for  Gibraltar,  had  gone  down  within  sight  of  land,  off  Holyhead,  before 
assistance  could  be  obtained.  It  appears  she  had  been  insured  in  the 
Liverpool  Mutual  Marine  Association  for  double  the  value  of  hull  and 
cargo.  One  of  the  crew  had  refused  to  go,  on  the  ground  that  she  was 
unseaworthy,  and  he  was  sentenced  to  fourteen  days'  imprisonment  under 
the  Merchant  Shipping  Act.  The  editor  was  of  opinion  that,  although  he 
had  been  justly  sentenced,  still,  he  thought,  this  fearful  fulfilment  of  his 
prognostication  would  have  such  an  effect  on  the  minds  of  the  public 
that  his  further  incarceration  would  be  highly  inexpedient,  and  might  lead 
to  rioting.  He  was  further  of  opinion  that  marine  insurance  ought  to  be 
entirely  prohibited,  except  when  undertaken  by  underwriters  "  in  the  usual 
way."  This  article,  I  have  since  heard,  made  a  great  sensation  at 
Lloyd's,  and  four  thousand  copies  of  the  paper  were  gratuitously  dis- 
tributed in  the  neighborhood  of  the  docks  both  in  Liverpool  and  London. 
A  committee  is  being  formed  for  the  purpose  of  urging  Parliament  to 
make  all  marine  policies  void,  except  those  which  have  been  made  "  in 
he  usual  way."    It  is  obvious  that  the  crew  of  the  Seagull  have  not  died 


94 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


in  vain.  They  have  perished  in  the  cause  of  an  ancient  monopoly.  The 
public  indignation  at  their  cruel  fate  is  being  used  as  a  handy  hook  on 
which  to  hang  all  "  newfangled  systems  of  marine  insurance  which  have 
not  stood  the  test  of  time,  and  which  have  hardly  yet  seen  the  light  of 
day." 

I  had  reached  my  own  door  when  I  was  attracted  by  a  shout  and  the 
wrangling  of  many  angry  voices  round  the  corner  of  the  street.  Running 
round,  I  saw  the  debris  of  an  overturned  dog-cart.  Several  persons  seemed 
to  be  engaged  in  an  animated  debate  in  a  small  circle,  while  the  crowd 
played  the  r6le  of  a  Greek  chorus.  The  disputants  appeared  to  be  a  young 
gentleman  of  mettle,  in  a  high  collar  and  dog-skin  gloves,  a  broken-down 
solicitor's  clerk,  the  usual  policeman,  and  a  workman  in  corduroys.  It 
was  easy  to  explain  the  construction  of  the  group.  The  "  masher"  was 
obvious.'y  the  owner  of  the  ill-fated  dog-cart  ;  the  workman  was  the 
watchman  in  charge  of  the  traction-engine,  which  was  lying  quietly  at  the 
side  of  the  road  with  a  red  lamp  at  each  side.  The  clerk  was  "the  man 
in  the  street,"  the  vir  pietate  gravis  called  in  as  arbitrator  by  both  dispu- 
tants ;  and  the  policeman  was  there  as  a  matter  of  course.  When  I  reached 
the  spot  and  worked  my  way  to  the  inner  circle,  the  debate  had  reached 
this  stage  :  "I  tell  you,  any  well-bred  horse  would  shy  at  a  god-forsaken 
machine  like  that  ;  your  people  had  no  right  to  leave  it  there.  I  will 
make  them  pay  for  this."  Workman— "  Well,  them's  my  instructions; 
here's  my  lights  all  a-burning,  and  you  shouldn't  drive  horses  like  that 
in  the  streets  of  London.  They'll  shy  at  anything,  and  it  ain't  safe." 
Masher — "  I  beg  your  pardon,  I  tell  you  any  horse  would  shy  at  that: 
and  what  is  more,  I  believe  traction-engines  are  unlawful  in  the  streets  ;  I 
know  I  have  heard  so."  Clerk — "Well,  I  can't  quite  say,  but  I  think 
so.  I  know  elephants  are  not  allowed  to  go  through  the  streets  without 
a  special  license  in  the  daytime,  because  our  people  had  a  case  in  which 
a  man  wanted  to  ride  an  elephant  through  the  city  and  distribute  colored 
leaflets,  and  the  Bench  said  that"  .  .  .  Policeman — "Traction-engines 
isn't  elephants  ;  we  don't  want  to  know  about  elephants  ;  which  way  was 
you  coming  when  your  horse  caught  sight  of  this  engine  ?  That  is  what 
I  want  to  get  at."  "Straight  up  King  Street,  constable,  and  this  fellow 
was  fast  asleep  near  the  machine."  "  No,  I  warn't  fast  asleep  ;  didn't  I 
ketch  'old  of  the  'orse ?  "  "Oh,  yes,  you  woke  up,  but  you  never  gave  any 
warning;  why  didn't  you  shout  out,  Beware  of  the  traction-engine?" 
"  What  for  ?  ain't  you  got  no  eyes  ?  Am  I  to  be  shouting  all  day  ?  What 
is  there  worse  about  this  'ere  engine  than  about  a  flappin'  van  ?  Eh  ? 
policeman,  what  is  there  worse,  I  say?"  Policeman  (firmly) — "That's 
not  the  question.  The  question  is,  Was  your  lamp  burning?  "  "  A  course 
they  was  a-burnin'  ;  ain't  they  a-burnin'  now?"  Clerk  (soothingly) — 
"  They  were  burning."  Policeman  (treading  on  clerk's  toes) — "  What  do 
you  want  here  ?  Be  off.  What  have  you  got  to  do  with  it  ?  Off  with 
you.  Now,  sir,"  turning  to  the  owner  of  the  broken  dog-cart,  "was  this 
man  asleep  on  dooty?"  "Well,  I  cannot  exactly  swear  he  was  asleep, 
but "  (contriving  to  slip  something  into  the  expectant  hand  of  the  officer), 
"  but  I  am  sure  he  was  not  awake — not  wide  awake."  "  Thank  you, 
sir";  turning  to  the  watchman,  "you  see  where  you  are  now;  I  shall 
report  you  asleep  on  dooty."  "  But  I  warn't  asleep,  I  tell  you."  "  You 
was  :  didn't  you  hear  the  gentleman  say  you  wasn't  awake  ?  "  This  was 
the  conclusion  ;  there  was  a  slight  and  sullen  murmur  in  the  crowd  ;  but 
it  died  away.  The  incident  was  at  an  end  ;  law  was  vindicated  ;  justice 
was  done.  Yes,  done,  and  no  mistake  !  But  I  left  without  any  clear  idea 
as  to  the  right  of  an  engine-owner  to  the  use  of  the  common  roads.  The 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE. 


95 


story  of  the  elephant  seemed  germane  to  the  issue,  but  it  was  nipped  in 
the  bud.  I  went  home,  swallowed  my  dinner  not  without  appetite,  and 
set  forth  in  search  of  entertainment. 

There  was  a  good  deal  of  choice.  There  always  is  in  London,  except 
on  Sundays  ;  and  even  then  there  is  the  choice  between  the  church,  the 
public-house,  and  the  knocking-shop.  There  were  the  brothers  Goliah, 
and  the  infant  Samuel  on  the  high  rope,  and  Miss  Lottie  Luzone,  the 
teetotautomaton,  and  John  Ball  the  Stentor  Comique,  and  the  Sisters 
Delilah,  and  Signor  Farini  with  his  wonderful  pigeons,  and  the  Tiger- 
tamer  of  Bengal,  and  the  Pearl  family  with  their  unequalled  aquatic  feats, 
and  I  don't  know  what  else.  While  I  was  dwelling  on  the  merits  of  these 
rival  attractions,  I  heard  a  familiar  voice  at  the  door:  "Come  on,  old 
fellow  ;  come  to  the  National  Liberal  ;  Stewart  Headlam  is  going  to  open 
a  debate  on  the  County  Council  and  the  Music-halls.  We  will  have  a  high 
old  time.  Come  and  speak."  As  a  rule,  I  fear  the  Trocadero  or  the 
Aquarium  would  have  prevailed  over  the  great  Liberal  Club  as  a  place  of 
after-dinner  entertainment  ;  but  on  this  occasion  I  had  a  newly-aroused 
interest  in  all  such  questions  as  the  one  about  to  be  discussed.  So  I  put 
on  my  hat  and  jumped  into  the  hansom  which  Jack  had  left  at  the  door. 
En  passant,  you  may  have  noticed  that  this  is  the  second  time  I  have 
recorded  the  fact  that  "I  put  on  my" hat."  English  novelists  are  very 
careful  about  this  precaution.  "He  put  on  his  hat  and  walked  out  of  the 
room."  "He  wished  her  goodbye,  and,  putting  on  his  hat,  he  went  out 
as  he  had  come  in."  There  is  never  a  word  said  about  the  hero's  top-coat 
or  his  gloves,  no  matter  how  cold  the  weather  may  be,  but  the  putting  on 
of  the  hat  is  always  carefully  chronicled.  Now,  there  is  a  reason  for  this. 
It  is  a  well-established  principle  of  English  common  law  that,  whenever 
a  public  disturbance  or  street  melee  or  other  shindy  takes  place,  the  repre- 
sentative of  order  shall  single  out  a  suitable  scapegoat  from  among  the 
crowd.  In  case  of  a  mutiny  in  the  Austrian  army,  I  am  told,  it  is  usual 
to  shoot  every  tenth  man  who  is  chosen  by  lot.  But  here  in  merry  Eng- 
land the  instructions  are  to  look  round  for  a  man  without  a  hat.  When 
found,  he  is  marched  off  to  the  police  station  with  the  approval  of  all  con- 
cerned. It  is  part'  of  our  unwritten  law.  Some  few  months  since  the 
principle  was  actually  applied  in  a  cause  ce'Vebre  by  the  magistrate  himself. 
A  journalist  summoned  no  less  a  personage  than  the  Duke  of  Cambridge 
for  assault.  The  facts  were  not  denied,  and  the  witnesses  were  all  agreed, 
when  succor  came  from  an  unexpected  quarter.  "Is  it  a  fact,  as  I  have 
seen  it  stated  in  the  papers,"  asked  the  worthy  stipendiary,  "  is  it  a  fact, 
I  ask,  that  the  plaintiff  was  without  a  hat?"  There  was  no  gainsaying 
(his.  The  prosecutor  was  hatless  at  the  time  of  the  alleged  assault.  That 
settled  the  matter  ;  and  the  Commander-in-chief  of  the  British  Army  left 
the  court  (metaphorically  speaking)  without  a  stain  on  his  character. 

However,  as  I  have  said,  I  put  on  my  hat,  and  off  we  drove  to  the  con- 
ference-room of  the  big  club  with  the  odd  name.  "  National  "  was  first 
used  as  a  political  term  by  the  late  Benjamin  Disraeli  to  signify  the 
patriotic  as  opposed  to  the  cosmopolitan  and  anti-national.  "Liberal" 
was  first  used  in  a  political  sense  about  1815,  to  denote  the  advocates 
of  liberty  as  opposed  to  the  "  serviles  "  who  believed  in  State-control. 
And  yet  the  members  of  the  club  avowedly  uphold  State-interference  in 
all  things,  and  dub  the  doctrine  of  laissez  /aire  the  creed  of  selfishness. 
Still  the  building  is  a  fine  and  commodious  one,  and  what's  in  a  name, 
after  all  ? 

When  we  reached  the  political  arena,  Mr.  Headlam,  who  is  a  Socialist, 
was  in  the  middle  of  a  very  able  individualistic  harangue.    Indeed,  I 


96 


NSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


have  never  heard  the  case  for  moral  liberty  better  stated  and  more 
courageously  advocated  than  on  this  occasion.  I  was  anxious  to  hear 
what  the  censor  party  might  have  to  say.  I  half-expected  to  see  some 
weary  ascetic — perhaps  an  austere  cardinal — rise  in  his  place  and  wade 
through  some  solemn  passages  from  the  sententious  Hooker.  I  was 
agreeably  disappointed  when  a  chirpy  little  Scotchman  with  an  amusing 
brogue  and  a  moth-eaten  appearance  started  off  with  prattle  of  this  kind  : 
"  Gentlemen,  there's  no  one  loves  liberty  more  than  me.  But  we've  got 
to  draw  a  line  at  decency,  you  see.  I've  been  elected  to  sit  on  the 
Council  and  to  see  that  that  line  is  drawn  at  the  right  place.  That  is 
my  duty,  and  my  duty  I  mean  to  do.  Everything  which  is  calculated  to 
bring  a  blush  to  the  cheek  of  a  pure  maiden  must  be  put  down.  And 
there's  another  thing  ;  I  say  that  music-halls  where  intoxicating  liquors 
is  sold  must  be  put  down.  We  are  not  going  to  tolerate  places  what  in- 
cites to  fornication  and  drunkenness.  But  at  the  same  time  we  are  no 
foes  to  liberty, — that  is,  liberty  to  do  right,  and  that's  the  only  liberty 
worth  fighting  for,  depend  upon  it."  Mr.  McDoodle  slapped  his  knee 
with  emphatic  violence  and  sat  down.  "I  should  like  to  ask  the  last 
speaker,"  said  a  thin  gentleman  in  a  back  row,  "  whether  it  is  altogether 
consistent  for  a  State  which  has  repealed  every  statute  penalizing  forni- 
cation itself  to  keep  up  a  lot  of  little  worrying  measures  for  the  purpose 
of  penalizing  conduct  which  may  possibly  lead  to  fornication.  In  other 
words,  fornication  is  perfectly  legal,  but  a  song  likely  to  lead  to  forni- 
cation is  illegal.  Is  this  consistent?"  "Allow  me,"  shouted  a  stout 
man  with  a  loud  voice  ;  "  perhaps,  being  a  lawyer,  I  know  more  about 
these  matters  than  Mr.  McDoodle  possibly  can.  The  gentleman  who 
asks  the  question  is  in  error.  His  major  premise  is  false.  Fornication 
in  this  country  is  a  misdemeanor,  by  23  and  24  Vict.  c.  32."  "Pardon 
me,"  replied  the  voice  in  the  back  row,  "  I  also  am  a  lawyer,  and  I  say 
that  the  Act  you  refer  to  does  not  make  fornication  a  misdemeanor  ;  it 
refers  only  to  conspiracy  to  induce  a  woman  to  commit  the  sin  ;  that  is 
a  very  different  matter."  "I  don't  see  that  it  is,"  replied  the  stout  man, 
"  for  what  is  a  conspiracy  but  an  agreement  to  do  wrong?  Very  well, 
then,  an  agreement  between  a  man  and  a  woman  to  do  wrong  is  itself 
a  conspiracy.  And  since  they  cannot  commit  this  sin  without  agree- 
ment (if  they  do,  of  course  it  comes  under  another  head),  it  follows  that 
I  am  right."  "  Not  at  all,"  rejoined  the  lawyer  at  the  back,  "  not  at  all  ; 
I  fear  your  ideas  of  conspiracy  are  a  little  mixed.  If  you  will  consult 
Stephen's  Digest  of  the  Criminal  Law,  which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  you 
will  find  these  words  :  '  provided  that  an  agreement  between  a  man  and 
a  woman  to  commit  fornication  is  not  a  conspiracy.'  I  suppose  Mr. 
Justice  Stephen  may  be  taken  to  know  something  about  the  law."  Chair- 
man (coming  to  the  rescue) — "  I  think,  gentlemen,  we  are  getting  off  the 
lines.  Perhaps  Mr.  Gattie  will  favor  us  with  a  few  words  ?"  "I  con- 
fess, sir,"  responded  that  gentleman,  "  I  confess  I  am  in  a  difficulty. 
Are  we  discussing  whether  indecency  is  wrong  or  not  ?  Or  is  the  ques- 
tion before  the  meeting  whether  Mr.  McDoodle  and  his  coadjutors  are 
the  proper  persons  to  act  as  censores  morum  ?  My  own  views  on  these 
three  points  are  these  :  that  indecency,  when  properly  defined,  is  wrong; 
that  Mr.  McDoodle  and  his  friends  are  not  competent  to  define  it,  nor  to 
suggest  means  for  suppressing  it  ;  and,  finally,  that  the  State  had  much 
better  leave  the  settlement  of  the  question  to  public  opinion  and  the  com- 
mon sense  and  common  taste  of  the  people."  A  whirl  of  arguments, 
relevant  and  irrelevant,  followed  his  speech,  which  contained  references 
to  a  pretty  wide  field  of  State-interferences,  showing  their  invariable  and 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  97 


inevitable  failure  all  along  the  line.  One  apoplectic  little  man  was  loudly- 
demanding  an  answer  to  his  question  "  whether  we  were  going  to  allow 
people  to  run  down  the  street  in  a  state  of  complete  nudity."  That  is 
what  he  wanted  to  know.  Some  one  replied  that  in  this  climate  the 
danger  was  remote,  and  that  the  roughs  would  provide  a  sufficient  de- 
terrent. Some  one  else  wanted  to  know  whether  it  was  decent  to  hawk 
the  Pall  Mall  Gazette  in  the  streets,  and  a  very  earnest  young  man  in- 
quired whether  his  hearers  had  ever  read  the  thirty-sixth  chapter  of 
Genesis,  and  whether,  if  so,  it  was  calculated  to  raise  a  blush  to  the 
cheek  of  virtue.  A  wag  replied  :  "  There  is  no  cheek  about  virtue." 
And  so  the  ball  was  kept  rolling.  And  we  left  without  having  formed 
the  faintest  idea  as  to  whether  the  State  should  interfere  with  the  amuse- 
ments of  the  people  or  not  ;  whether  it  should  limit  its  interference  to 
the  enforcement  of  decency  and  propriety  ;  what  those  terms  signify  for 
the  practical  purpose  ;  whether  in  any  case  it  should  delegate  this  duty  to 
local  authorities,  and,  if  so,  to  what  authorities  ;  whether  it  should  itself 
take  the  initiative,  or  leave  it  to  persons  considering  themselves  injured  ; 
whether  such  alleged  injury  should  be  direct  or  indirect,  and,  in  either 
case,  what  those  expressions  mean.  However,  a  good  deal  of  dust  had 
been  kicked  up,  and  even  the  most  cocksure  of  those  who  had  entered 
the  lists  went  out,  I  doubt  not,  with  a  conviction  that  there  was  a  good 
deal  to  be  said'on  all  sides  of  the  question.  That,  in  itself,  was  an  un- 
mixed good. 

Walking  home,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Oxford  Circus,  a  respectable 
young  woman  asked  if  I  would  be  good  enough  to  tell  her  the  nearest 
way  to  Russell  Square.  She  had  hardly  got  the  words  out  of  her  mouth, 
when  a  policeman  emerged  from  a  doorway  and  charged  her  with  solic- 
itation, asking  me  to  accompany  them  to  the  station  and  sign  the 
charge-sheet.  Not  being  a  member  of  the  profession,  of  course  the 
young  woman  had  neglected  to  "  pay  her  footing";  hence  the  official 
zeal.  Old  hands  had  with  impunity  accosted  me  at  least  a  dozen  times 
in  the  same  street.  I  ventured  to  remonstrate,  when  I  was  myself 
charged  with  being  drunk  and  attempting  a  rescue,  and  I  should  cer- 
tainly have  ended  my  day  in  a  State-furnished  apartment,  had  not  an- 
other keeper  of  the  Queen's  peace  come  alongside  and  drawn  away  my 
accuser,  whispering  something  in  his  ear  the  while.  I  recognized  the 
features  of  an  old  acquaintance  with  whom  I  have  an  occasional  glass  at 
the  Bottle  of  Hay  on  my  way  home  from  the  club. 

I  reached  home  at  last,  and  the  events  of  the  day  battled  with  one  an- 
other for  precedence  in  my  dreams.  Freedom,  order;  order,  freedom. 
Which  is  it  to  be?  When  I  arose  in  the  morning,  I  tried  to  record  the 
previous  day's  experiences  just  as  they  came  to  me,  without  offering  any 
dogmatic  opinion  as  to  the  rights  and  the  wrongs  of  the  several  cases 
which  arose.  "  I  will  send  them,"  I  said,  "  to  the  organ  of  philosophic 
Anarchy  in  America,  and,  perhaps,  in  spite  of  their  trivial  character, 
they  may  be  deemed  to  present  points  worthy  of  comment."  What 
a  pity  it  is  that  we  cannot  put  our  London  fogs  in  a  bag  and  send  them 
by  parcel  post  to  Boston  for  careful  analysis  ! 

Wordsworth  Donisthorpe. 

London,  England. 


98 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


THE  MORAL  OF  MR.  DONISTHORPE'S  WOES. 

{Liberty,  January  25,  1890.] 

The  reader  of  Mr.  Donisthorpe's  article  in  this  issue  on 
"  The  Woes  of  an  Anarchist  "  may  rise  from  its  perusal  with 
a  feeling  of  confusion  equal  to  that  manifested  by  the  author, 
but  at  least  he  will  say  to  himself  that  for  genuine  humor  he 
has  seldom  read  anything  that  equals  it.  For  myself  I  have 
read  it  twice  in  manuscript  and  twice  in  proof,  and  still  wish 
that  I  might  prolong  my  life  by  the  laughter  that  four  more 
readings  would  be  sure  to  excite.  Mr.  Donisthorpe  ought  to 
write  a  novel.  But  when  he  asks  Liberty  to  comment  on  his 
woes  and  dissipate  the  fog  he  condenses  around  himself,  I  am 
at  a  loss  to  know  how  to  answer  him.  For  what  is  the  moral 
of  this  article,  in  which  a  day's  events  are  made,  to  tell  with 
equal  vigor,  now  against  State  Socialism,  now  against  capital- 
ism, now  against  Anarchism,  and  now  against  Individualism  ? 
Simply  this, — that  in  the  mess  in  which  we  find  ourselves,  and 
perhaps  in  any  state  of  things,  all  social  theories  involve  their 
difficulties  and  disadvantages,  and  that  there  are  some  troubles 
from  which  mankind  can  never  escape.  Well,  the  Anarchists, 
despite  the  fact  that  Henry  George  calls  them  optimists,  are 
pessimistic  enough  to  accept  this  moral  fully.  They  never  have 
claimed  that  liberty  will  bring  perfection  ;  they  simply  say 
that  its  results  are  vastly  preferable  to  those  that  follow  au- 
thority. Under  liberty  Mr.  Donisthorpe  may  have  to  listen  for 
some  minutes  every  day  to  the  barrel-organ  (though  I  really 
think  that  it  will  never  lodge  him  in  the  mad-house),  but  at 
least  he  will  have  the  privilege  of  going  to  the  music-hall  in 
the  evening  ;  whereas,  under  authority,  even  in  its  most  hon- 
est and  consistent  form,  he  will  get  rid  of  the  barrel-organ  only 
at  the  expense  of  being  deprived  of  the  music-hall,  and,  in  its 
less  honest,  less  consistent,  and  more  probable  form,  he  may 
lose  the  music-hall  at  the  same  time  that  the  is  forced  to  en- 
dure the  barrel-organ.  As  a  choice  of  blessings,  liberty  is  the 
greater  ;  as  a  choice  of  evils,  liberty  is  the  smaller.  Then  lib- 
erty always,  say  the  Anarchists.  No  use  of  force,  except 
against  the  invader  ;  and  in  those  cases  where  it  is  difficult  to 
tell  whether  the  alleged  offender  is  an  invader  or  not,  still  no 
use  of  force  except  where  the  necessity  of  immediate  solution 
is  so  imperative  that  we  must  use  it  to  save  ourselves.  And 
in  these  few  cases  where  we  must  use  it,  let  us  do  so  frankly 
and  squarely,  acknowledging  it  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  without 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,    AND   THE  STATE. 


99 


seeking  to  harmonize  our  action  with  any  political  ideal  or  con- 
structing any  far-fetched  theory  of  a  State  or  collectivity  hav- 
ing prerogatives  and  rights  superior  to  those  of  individuals  and 
aggregations  of  individuals  and  exempted  from  the  operation 
of  the  ethical  principles  which  individuals  are  expected  to 
observe.  But  to  say  all  this  to  Mr.  Donisthorpe  is  like  carry- 
ing coals  to  Newcastle,  despite  his  catalogue  of  doubts  and 
woes.  He  knows  as  well  as  I  do  that  "  liberty  is  not  the 
daughter,  but  the  mother  of  order." 


L'ETAT  EST  MORT  ;  VIVE  L'ETAT  ! 

[Liberty,  May  24,  1890.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

Hooks-and-eyes  are  very  useful.  Hooks  are  useless  ;  eyes  are  use- 
less. Yet  in  combination  they  are  useful.  This  is  co-operation.  Where 
you  have  division  of  labor  and  consequent  differentiation  of  function 
and,  eventually,  of  structure,  there  is  co-operation.  Certain  tribes  of 
ants  have  working  members  and  fighting  members.  The  military  caste 
are  unable  to  collect  food,  which  is  provided  for  them  by  the  other  mem- 
bers of  the  community,  in  return  for  which  they  devote  themselves  to  the 
defence  of  the  whole  society.  But  for  these  soldiers  the  society  would 
perish.  If  either  class  perished,  the  other  class  would  perish  with  it.  It 
is  the  old  fable  of  the  belly  and  the  limbs. 

Division  of  labor  does  not  always  result  in  differentiation  of  structure. 
In  the  case  of  bees  and  many  other  insects  we  know  that  it  does. 
Among  mammals  we  have  the  well-marked  structural  division  into  males 
and  females,  but  beyond  this  the  tendency  to  fix  structural  changes  is 
very  slight.  In  races  where  caste  prevails,  the  tendency  is  more  marked. 
Even  in  England,  where  caste  is  extinct,  it  has  been  observed  among  the 
mining  population  of  Northumbria.  And  the  notorious  short-sightedness 
of  Germans  has  been  set  down  to  compulsory  book-study. 

As  a  general  rule,  we  may  neglect  this  effect  of  co-operation  amon^ 
human  beings.  The  fact  remains  that  the  organized  effort  of  100  indi- 
viduals is  a  very  great  deal  more  effective  than  the  sum  of  the  efforts  of 
100  unorganized  individuals.  Co-operation  is  an  unmixed  good.  And  the 
Ishmaelitic  anarchy  of  the  bumble-bee  is  uneconomic.  Hostility  to  the 
principle  of  co-operation  (upon  which  society  is  founded)  is  usually  at- 
tributed by  the  ignorant  to  philosophical  Anarchists.  While  Socialists 
never  weary  of  pointing  to  the  glorious  triumphs  of  co-operation,  and 
claiming  them  for  Socialism.  Wherever  a  number  of  persons  join  hands 
with  the  object  of  effecting  a  purpose  otherwise  unattainable,  we  have 
what  is  tantamount  to  a  new  force, — the  force,  of  combination  :  and 
the  persons  so  combining  and  regarded  as  a  single  body  may  be  called 
by  a  name, — any  name  ;  a  Union,  an  Association,  a  Society,  a  Club,  a 
Company,  a  Corporation,  a  State.  I  do  not  say  all  these  terms  denote 
precisely  the  same  thing,  but  they  all  connote  co-operation.    I  prefer  to 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


use  the  word  Club  to  denote  all  such  associations  of  men  for  a  common 
purpose. 

Let  the  State  be  now  abolished  for  the  purposes  of  this  discussion. 
How  do  we  stand  ?  We  have  by  no  means  abolished  all  the  clubs  and 
companies  in  which  citizens  find  themselves  grouped  and  interbanded. 
There  they  all  are,  just  as  before.  Let  us  examine  some  of  them.  Stay  ; 
there  are  a  number  of  new  ones,  suddenly  sprung  up  out  of  the  debris 
of  the  old  State. 

Here  are  some  eighty  men  organized  in  the  form  of  a  cricket-club. 
They  may  not  pitch  the  ball  as  they  like,  but  only  in  accordance  with 
rigid  laws.  They  elect  a  king  or  captain,  and  they  bind  themselves  to 
obey  him  in  the  field.  A  member  is  told  off  to  field  at  long-on,  although 
he  may  wish  to  field  at  point.    He  must  obey  the  despot. 

Here  is  a  ring  of  horsemen.  They  ride  races.  They  back  their  own 
horses.  Disputes  arise  about  fouling,  or  perhaps  the  course  is  a  curve 
and  some  rider  takes  a  short  cut.  Or  the  weights  of  the  riders  are  un- 
equal, and  the  heavier  rider  claims  to  equalize  the  weights.  All  such 
matters  are  laid  before  a  committee,  and  rules  are  drawn  up  by  which  all 
the  members  of  the  little  racing  club  pledge  themselves  to  be  bound. 
The  club  grows  :  other  riding  or  racing  men  join  it  or  adopt  its  rules. 
At  last  so  good  are  its  laws  that  they  are  adopted  by  all  the  racing  frater- 
nity in  the  island,  and  all  racing  disputes  are  settled  by  the  rules  of  the 
Jockey  Club.  And  even  the  judges  of  the  land  defer  to  them,  and  refer 
points  of  racing  law  to  the  Club. 

Here  again  is  a  knot  of  whalers  chatting  on  the  beach  of  a  stormy  sea. 
Each  trembles  for  the  safety  of  his  own  vessel.  He  would  give  some- 
thing to  be  rid  of  his  uneasiness.  All  his  eggs  are  in  one  basket.  He 
would  willingly  distribute  them  over  many  baskets.  He  offers  to  take 
long  odds  that  his  own  vessel  is  lost.  He  repeats  the  offer  till  the  long 
odds  cover  the  value  of  his  ship  and  cargo,  and  perhaps  profits  and 
time.  "  Now,"  says  he,  "  I  am  comfortable.  It  is  true,  I  forfeit  a  small 
percentage;  but  if  my  whole  craft  goes  to  the  bottom,  I  lose  nothing." 
He  laughs  and  sings  while  the  others  go  croaking  about  the  sands,  shak- 
ing their  heads  and  looking  fearfully  at  the  breakers.  At  last  they  all 
follow  his  example,  and  the  net  result  is  a  Mutual  Marine  Insurance  So- 
ciety. After  a  while  they  lay  the  odds,  not  with  their  own  members 
only,  but  with  others  ;  and  the  risk  being  over-estimated  (naturally  at 
first),  they  make  large  dividends.  But  now  difficulties  arise.  The  cap- 
tain of  a  whaler  has  thrown  cargo  overboard  in  a  heavy  sea.  The  owner 
claims  for  the  loss.  The  company  declines  to  pay,  on  the  ground  that 
the  loss  was  voluntarily  caused  by  the  captain  and  not  by  the  hand  of 
God  or  the  king's  enemies  ;  and  that  there  would  be  no  limit  to  jettison, 
if  the  claim  were  allowed.  Other  members  meet  with  similar  difficulties, 
and  finally  Rules  are  made  which  provide  for  all  known  contingencies. 
And  when  any  dispute  arises,  the  chosen  Umpire,  whether[it  be  a  mutual 
friend,  or  an  agora-full  of  citizens,  or  a  department  of  State,  or  any  other 
person  or  body  of  persons,  refers  to  the  common  practice  and  precedents 
so  far  as  they  apply.  In  other  words,  the  Rules  of  the  Insurance  Soci- 
ety are  the  law  of  the  land.  In  spite  of  the  State,  this  is  so  to-day  to  a 
considerable  extent  :  I  may  say,  in  all  matters  which  have  not  been 
botched  and  cobbled  by  statute. 

There  is  another  class  of  club  springing  out  of  the  altruistic  sentiment. 
An  old  lady  takes  compassion  on  a  starving  cat  (no  uncommon  sight  in 
the  West  End  of  London  after  the  Season).  She  puts  a  saucer  of  milk 
and  some  liver  on  the  doorstep.    She  is  soon  recognized  as  a  benefactress 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  IOI 


and  the  cats  for  a  mile  round  swarm  to  her  household.  The  saucers  in- 
crease and  multiply,  and  the  liver  is  an  item  in  her  butcher's  bill.  The 
strain  is  too  great  to  be  borne  single-handed.  She  issues  a  circular  appeal, 
and  she  is  surprised  to  find  how  many  are  willing  to  contribute  a  fair  share, 
although  their  sympathy  shrivels  up  before  an  unfair  demand.  They  are 
willing  to  be  taxed  pro  rata,  but  they  will  not  bear  the  burden  of  other 
people's  stinginess.  "  Let  the  poor  cats  bear  it  rather,"  say  they.  "  What 
is  everybody's  business  is  nobody's  business.  It  is  very  sad,  but  it  can- 
not be  helped.  If  we  keep  one  cat,  hundreds  will  starve  ;  so  what's  the 
use  ?  "  But.  when  once  the  club  is  started,  nobody  feels  the  burden  ;  the 
Cats'  Home  is  built  and  endowed,  and  all  goes  well.  Hospitals,  infirma- 
ries, alms-houses,  orphanages,  spring  up  all  round.  At  first  they  are 
reckless  and  indiscriminate,  and  become  the  prey  of  impostors  and  able- 
bodied  vagrants.  Then  Rules  are  framed  ;  the  Charity  Organization  So- 
ciety co-ordinates  and  directs  public  benevolence.  And  those  rules  of 
prudence  and  economy  are  copied  and  adopted  in  many  respects  by  those 
who  administer  the  State  Poor  Law. 

Then  we  have  associations  of  persons  who  agree  on  important  points  of 
science  or  politics.  They  wish  to  make  others  think  with  them,  in  order 
that  society  may  be  pleasanter  and  more  congenial  for  themselves.  They 
would  button-hole  every  man  in  the  street  and  argue  the  question  out 
with  him  ;  but  the  process  is  too  lengthy  and  wearisome.  They  club  to- 
gether and  form  such  institutions  as  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society, 
which  has  spent  seven  million  pounds  in  disseminating  untruths  all  over 
the  world.  We  have  the  Cobden  Club,  which  is  slowly  and  sadly  dying 
of  inconsistency  after  a  career  of  merited  success.  We  have  scientific  so- 
cieties of  all  descriptions  that  never  ask  or  expect  a  penny  reward  for  all 
their  outlay,  beyond  making  other  people  wiser  and  pleasanter  neighbors. 

Finally,  we  have  societies  banded  together  to  do  battle  against  rivals  on 
the  principle  of  "  Union  is  strength."  These  clubs  are  defensive  or  ag- 
gressive. The  latter  class  includes  all  trading  associations,  the  object  of 
which  is  to  make  profits  by  out-manoeuvring  competitors.  The  former 
or  defensive  class  includes  all  the  political  societies  formed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  resisting  the  State, — the  most  aggressive  club  in  existence.  Over 
one  hundred  of  these  "  protection  societies  "  of  one  sort  and  another  are 
now  federated  under  the  hegemony  of  the  Liberty  and  Property  Defence 
League. 

Now  we  have  agreed  that  the  State  is  to  be  abolished.  What  is  the  re- 
sult ?  Here  are  Watch  Committees  formed  in  the  great  towns  to  prevent 
and  to  insure  against  burglars,  thieves,  and  like  marauders.  How  they 
are  to  be  constituted  I  do  not  clearly  know  ;  neither  do  I  know  the  limits 
of  their  functions.  Here  again  is  a  Mutual  Inquest  Society  to  provide 
for  the  examination  of  dead  persons  before  burial  or  cremation,  in  order 
to  make  murder  as  unprofitable  a  business  as  possible.  Here  is  a  Vigi- 
lance Association  sending  out  detectives  for  the  purpose  of  discovering  and 
lynching  the  unsocial  wretches  who  knowingly  travel  in  public  convey- 
ances with  infectious  diseases  on  them.  Here  is  a  journal  supported 
by  consumers  for  the  advertisement  of  adulterating  dealers.  And  here 
again  is  a  Filibustering  Company  got  up  by  adventurous  traders  of  the 
old  East  India  Company  stamp  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  trade  into  for- 
eign countries  with  or  without  the  consent  of  the  invaded  parties.  Here 
is  a  Statistical  Society  devising  Rules  to  make  it  unpleasant  for  those  who 
evade  registration  and  the  census,  and  offering  inducement  to  all  who  fur- 
nish the  required  information.  What  sort  of  organization  (if  any)  will  be 
formed  for  the  enforcement  (not  necessarily  by  brute-force)  of  contract  ? 


102 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


Or  will  there  be  many  such  organizations  dealing  with  different  classes  of 
contract?  Will  there  be  a  Woman's  League  to  boycott  any  man  who  has 
abused  the  confidence  of  a  woman  and  violated  his  pledges?  How  will  it 
try  and  sanction  cases  of  breach  of  promise  ? 

Above  all,  how  is  this  powerful  Company  for  the  defence  of  the  country 
against  foreign  invaders  to  be  constituted  ?  And  what  safeguards  will  its 
members  provide  against  the  tyranny  of  the  officials  ?  When  a  Senator 
proposed  to  limit  the  standing  army  of  the  United  States  to  three  thou- 
sand, George  Washington  agreed,  on  condition  that  the  honorable  member 
would  arrange  that  the  country  should  never  be  invaded  by  more  than  two 
thousand.  Frankenstein  created  a  Monster  he  could  not  lay.  This  will 
be  a  nut  for  Anarchists  of  the  future  to  crack. 

And  now,  to  revert  to  the  Vigilance  Society  formed  for  lynching  per- 
sons who  travel  about  in  public  places  with  small-pox  and  scarletina,  what 
rules  will  they  make  for  their  own  guidance  ?  Suppose  they  dub  every 
unvaccinated  person  a  "  focus  of  infection,"  shall  we  witness  the  establish- 
ment of  an  Anti-  Vigilance  Society  to  punch  the  heads  of  the  detectives 
who  punch  the  heads  of  the' 4  foci  of  infection"?  Remember,  we  have 
both  these  societies  in  full  working  order  to-day.  One  is  called  the  State, 
and  the  other  is  the  Anti- Vaccination  Society. 

The  questions  which  I  should  wish  to  ask,  and  which  I  should  wish  Mr. 
Herbert  Spencer,  Mr.  Auberon  Herbert,  Mr.  Benjamin  Tucker,  and  Mr. 
Victor  Yarros  to  answer,  are  chiefly  these  two  : 

1.  How  far  may  voluntary  co-operators  invade  the  liberty  of  others  ? 
And  what  is  to  prevent  such  invasion  under  a  system  of  Anarchy  ? 

2.  Is  compulsory  co-operation  ever  desirable  ?  And  what  form  (if  any) 
should  such  compulsion  take  ? 

The  existing  State  is  obviously  only  a  conglomeration  of  several  large 
societies  which  would  exist  separately  or  collectively  in  its  absence  ;  if  the 
State  were  abolished,  these  associations  would  necessarily  spring  up  out  of 
its  ruins,  just  as  the  nations  of  Europe  sprang  out  of  the  ruins  of  the  Ro- 
man Empire.  They  would  apparently  lack  the  power  of  compulsion.  No 
one  would  be  compelled  to  join  against  his  will.  Take  the  ordinary  case 
of  a  gas-lit  street.  Would  a  voluntary  gas-committee  be  willing  to  light  the 
street  without  somehow  taxing  all  the  dwellers  in  the  street  ?  If  yes,  then 
there  is  inequity.  The  generous  and  public-spirited  pay  for  the  stingy  and 
mean.  But  if  no,  then  how  is  the  taxing  to  be  accomplished  ?  And  where 
is  the  line  to  be  drawn  ?  If  you  compel  A  to  pay  for  lighting  the  street 
when  he  swears  he  prefers  it  dark  (a  householder  may  really  prefer  a  dark 
street  to  a  light  one,  if  he  goes  to  bed  at  sunset  and  wants  the  traffic  to  be 
diverted  into  other  streets  to  insure  his  peace)  ;  then  you  will  compel  him 
to  subscribe  to  the  Watch  fund,  though  his  house  is  burglar- proof  ;  and  to 
the  fire  brigade,  though  his  house  is  fire-proof  ;  and  to  the  prisons  as  part 
of  the  plant  and  tools  of  the  Watch  Committee  ;  and,  it  may  logically  be 
urged,  to  the  churches  and  schools  as  part  also  of  such  plant  and  tools 
for  the  prevention  of  certain  crimes. 

Moreover,  if  you  compel  him  to  subscribe  for  the  gas  in  the  street,  you 
must  make  him  pay  his  share  of  the  street  itself  (paving,  repairing,  and 
cleansing)  ;  and  if  the  street,  then  the  highway  ;  and  if  the  highway,  then 
the  railway,  and  the  canal,  and  the  bridges,  and  even  the  harbors  and  light- 
houses and  other  common  apparatus  of  transport  and  locomotion. 

Personally,  as  an  individualist,  I  would  not  compel  a  citizen  to  subscribe 
to  common  benefits,  even  though  he  necessarily  shares  them.  But  what  I 
want  the  four  lights  of  Anarchy  above-named  to  tell  me  is  :  How  are  we 
to  remove  the  injustice  of  allowing  one  man  to  enjoy  what  another  has 


TH£  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  IO3 


earned  ?  My  questions  are  quite  distinct.  Thus  an  army  under  the  system 
of  conscription  is  a  case  of  compulsory  co-operation  :  a  band  of  brigands 
is  a  case  of  voluntary  co-operation.  I  hate  both.  I  would  join  a  volun- 
tary association  directed  against  either  or  both.  Neither  do  I  put  these 
questions  in  order  to  cast  doubts  on  the  feasibility  of  Anarchy  at  the  pres- 
ent time.  I  ask  merely  for  information  from  those  who  are,  in  my  opin- 
ion, best  able  to  give  it. 

Wordsworth  Donisthorpe. 

London,  England. 


VOLUNTARY  CO-OPERATION. 

[Liberty,  May  24,  1890.] 

It  is  questionable  whether  Herbert  Spencer  will  relish  Mr. 
Donisthorpe's  classification  of  him  as  one  of  four  lights  of 
Anarchy.  I  think  he  would  be  justified  in  putting  in  a  dis- 
claimer. No  doubt  Anarchy  is  immeasurably  indebted  to  Mr. 
Spencer  for  a  phenomenally  clear  exposition  of  its  bottom 
truths.  But  he  entertains  heresies  on  the  very  questions 
which  Mr.  Donisthorpe  raises  that  debar  him  from  recogni- 
tion as  an  Anarchist.  His  belief  in  compulsory  taxation  and 
his  acceptance  of  the  majority  principle,  not  as  a  temporary 
necessity,  but  as  permanently  warranted  within  a  certain 
sphere,  show  him  to  be  unfaithful  to  his  principle  of  equal 
liberty,  as  Mr.  Donisthorpe  has  convincingly  demonstrated  in 
his  recent  book  on  "  Individualism."  I  am  sure  that  his 
answers  to  Mr.  Donisthorpe's  questions  would  widely  differ 
from  any  that  Mr.  Yarros  or  myself  could  possibly  make. 

When  it  comes  to  Auberon  Herbert,  the  community  of 
thought  is  closer,  as  on  practical  issues  he  is  pretty  nearly  at 
one  with  the  attitude  of  Liberty.  But  I  fancy  that  Mr.  Donis- 
thorpe would  have  difficulty  in  driving  all  three  of  us  into  the 
same  corner.  Before  he  had  gone  far,  the  ethical  question  of 
the  nature  of  right  would  arise,  and  straightway  Mr.  Yarros 
and  myself  would  be  arrayed  with  Mr.  Donisthorpe  against 
Mr.  Herbert. 

As  one  of  the  two  remaining  "  lights  of  Anarchy  "  appealed 
to,  I  will  try  to  deal  briefly  with  Mr.  Donisthorpe's  questions. 
To  his  first  :  "  How  far  may  voluntary  co-operators  invade 
the  liberty  of  others?"  I  answer:  Not  at  all.  Under  this 
head  I  have  previously  made  answer  to  Mr.  Donisthorpe,  and 
as  to  the  adequacy  or  inadequacy  of  this  answer  he  has  as  yet 
made  no  sign.    For  this  reason  I  repeat  my  words.    "  Then 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


liberty  always,  say  the  Anarchists.  No  use  of  force,  except 
against  the  invader  ;  and  in  those  cases  where  it  is  difficult  to 
tell  whether  the  alleged  offender  is  an  invader  or  not,  still  no 
use  of  force  except  where  the  necessity  of  immediate  solution 
is  so  imperative  that  we  must  use  it  to  save  ourselves.  And 
in  these  few  cases  where  we  must  use  it,  let  us  do  so  frankly 
and  squarely,  acknowledging  it  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  with- 
out seeking  to  harmonize  our  action  with  any  political  ideal 
or  constructing  any  far-fetched  theory  of  a  State  or  collectivity 
having  prerogatives  and  rights  superior  to  those  of  individuals 
and  aggregations  of  individuals  and  exempted  from  the  opera- 
tion of  the  ethical  principles  which  individuals  are  expected 
to  observe."  This  is  the  best  rule  that  I  can  frame  as  a  guide 
to  voluntary  co-operators.  To  apply  it  to  only  one  of  Mr. 
Donisthorpe's  cases,  I  think  that  under  a  system  of  Anarchy, 
even  if  it  were  admitted  that  there  was  some  ground  for 
considering  an  unvaccinated  person  an  invader,  it  would  be 
generally  recognized  that  such  invasion  was  not  of  a  char- 
acter to  require  treatment  by  force,  and  that  any  attempt  to 
treat  it  by  force  would  be  regarded  as  itself  an  invasion  of 
a  less  doubtful  and  more  immediate  nature,  requiring  as  such 
to  be  resisted. 

But  under  a  system  of  Anarchy  how  is  such  resistance  to 
be  made  ?  is  Mr.  Donisthorpe's  second  question.  By  another 
band  of  voluntary  co-operators.  But  are  we  then,  Mr.  Donis- 
thorpe  will  ask,  to  have  innumerable  bands  of  voluntary  co- 
operators  perpetually  at  war  with  each  other  ?  Not  at  all.  A 
system  of  Anarchy  in  actual  operation  implies  a  previous 
education  of  the  people  in  the  principles  of  Anarchy,  and  that 
in  turn  implies  such  a  distrust  and  hatred  of  interference  that 
the  only  band  of  voluntary  co-operators  which  could  gain  sup- 
port sufficient  to  enforce  its  will  would  be  that  which  either 
entirely  refrained  from  interference  or  reduced  it  to  a  mini- 
mum. This  would  be  my  answer  to  Mr.  Donisthorpe,  were  I 
to  admit  his  assumption  of  a  state  of  Anarchy  supervening 
upon  a  sudden  collapse  of  Archy.  But  I  really  scout  this  as- 
sumption as  absurd.  Anarchists  work  for  the  abolition  of  the 
State,  but  by  this  they  mean  not  its  overthrow,  but,  as  Prou- 
dhon  put  it,  its  dissolution  in  the  economic  organism.  This 
being  the  case,  the  question  before  us  is  not,  as  Mr.  Donis- 
thorpe supposes,  what  measures  and  means  of  interference  we 
are  justified  in  instituting,  but  which  ones  of  those  already 
existing  we  should  first  lop  off.  And  to  this  the  Anarchists 
answer  that  unquestionably  the  first  to  go  should  be  those 
Jhat  interfere  most  fundamentally  with  a  free  market,  and 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND  THE  STATE. 


that  the  economic  and  moral  changes  that  would  result  from 
this  would  act  as  a  solvent  upon  all  the  remaining  forms  of 
interference. 

14  Is  compulsory  co-operation  ever  desirable  ?  "  Compulsory 
co-operation  is  simply  one  form  of  invading  the  liberty  of 
others,  and  voluntary  co-operators  will  not  be  justified  in  re- 
sorting to  it — that  is,  in  becoming  compulsory  co-operators — 
any  more  than  resorting  to  any  other  form  of  invasion. 

"  How  are  we  to  remove  the  injustice  of  allowing  one  man 
to  enjoy  what  another  has  earned  ? "  I  do  not  expect  it  ever 
to  be  removed  altogether.  But  I  believe  that  for  every  dollar 
that  would  be  enjoyed  by  tax-dodgers  under  Anarchy,  a  thou- 
sand dollars  are  now  enjoyed  by  men  who  have  got  possession 
of  the  earnings  of  others  through  special  industrial,  com- 
mercial, and  financial  privileges  granted  them  by  authority  in 
violation  of  a  free  market. 

In  regard  to  the  various  clubs  referred  to  by  Mr.  Donis- 
thorpe  as  based  on  an  intolerance  that  is  full  of  the  spirit  of 
interference,  I  can  only  say  that  probably  they  will  cease  to 
pattern  after  their  great  exemplar,  the  State,  when  the  State 
shall  no  longer  exist,  and  that  meantime,  if  intolerant  bigots 
choose  to  make  petty  tyranny  a  condition  of  association  with 
them,  we  believers  in  liberty  have  the  privilege  of  avoiding 
their  society.  Doesn't  Mr.  Donisthorpe  suppose  that  we  can 
stand  it  as  long  as  they  can  ? 


L'ETAT,  C'EST  L'ENNEMI. 

{Liberty,  February  26,  1887.] 

Dear  Tucker  : 

Since  the  occasion  when  you  so  arbitrarily  side-tracked  me  in  the  edi- 
torial columns  of  Liberty  *  certain  notions  of  self-respect  in  connection 
with  your  attitude  towards  me  have  bid  me  pause  whenever  I  attempted 


*  The  writer  of  this  letter,  Mr.  Henry  Appleton,  was  one  of  Liberty's 
original  editorial  contributors,  and  remained  such  for  five  years.  At  the 
end  of  that  time  he  publicly  took  a  position  not  in  harmony  with  that  of 
the  paper,  on  a  point  of  great  importance,  and  it  became  necessary  that 
his  editorial  contributions  should  cease.  At  the  same  time  he  was  cor- 
dially invited  to  freely  make  use  of  the  other  departments  of  the  paper 
for  the  expression  of  his  views.  He  never  availed  himself  of  this  invita- 
tion further  than  to  write  the  above  letter,  which,  with  the  editor's  replv, 
is  included  in  this  volume  because,  in  spite  of  the  personal  nature  of  the 
controversy,  important  questions  of  principle  are  also  dealt  with. 


io6 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


to  state  my  present  position,  and  wherein  I  feel  that  I  have  outgrown  the 
partial  methods  by  which  you  seek  to  deal  with  existing  social  maladjust- 
ments. I  did  send  a  communication  to  the  Truth  Seeker,  but  Macdonald, 
though  he  had  just  published  your  communication,  chose  to  even  out-do 
your  side-tracking  method  of  discipline  by  dumping  me  out  of  his  col- 
umns altogether.  But,  lest  I  should  be  suspected  of  sneaking  out  of  the 
ranks  through  cowardice,  policy,  or  some  other  unworthy  consideration, 
I  will  waive  my  own  personality  in  behalf  of  right  thinking,  and  state 
my  case  as  fully  as  space  and  the  magnitude  of  the  subject  will  permit. 

Every  subject  dealing  with  radical  reform  has  two  main  terms, — viz., 
its  basic  philosophic  statement  and  its  resultant  protest.  The  basic 
statement,  or  affirmation,  of  our  propaganda  is  the  Sovereignty  of  the  In- 
dividual, around  which  the  whole  science  of  Individualism  is  built, — con- 
ditioned by  liberty  and  the  cost  principle,  (i)  Its  protest  is  aimed  at  arbi- 
trary force  which  ignores  individual  consent,  and  the  label  which  you 
borrowed  from  Proudhon  by  which  to  designate  it  is  "Anarchism." 

Fully  at  one  with  Josiah  Warren's  grand  affirmation,  I  was  as  fully  at 
one  with  the  righteousness  of  your  protest,  and,  paying  little  regard  as 
to  whether  you  grabbed  the  beast  of  authority  by  the  head  or  the  tail, 
pulled  off  my  coat  and  went  in  with  you  to  haul  him  out  of  his  hole. 
Whether  this  business  was  called  Anarchy  or  not  was  to  me,  for  the  time 
being,  of  little  account,  being  sure  that  it  was  righteous  and  telling 
business. 

But  few  numbers  of  Liberty\ivA  appeared,  when  the  esteemed  personal 
friends  whom  I  had  induced  to  subscribe  for  it  all  had  me  by  the  collar 
with  this  one  question  :  "  Well,  allowing  that  your  protest  is  all  right, 
what  have  you  to  substitute  for  the  existing  order?" 

"Why,"  I  replied,  "the  order  contemplated  grows  out  of  the  science 
of  Individualism,  the  corner-stone  of  which  is  our  basic  philosophic  affir- 
mation." 

"  Oh,  yes,  I  see,"  replied  a  Judge  of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court; 
"then  you  and  Tucker  belong  to  an  order  of  social  scientists  who  put 
their  protest  ahead  of  their  affirmation,  and  thus  propose  to  move  society 
tail-end-to.  Where  is  your  constructive  side  ?  Give  us  that,  and  the  pro- 
test, which  is  simply  its  logical  deduction,  will  take  care  of  itself." 

I  replied  to  him  and  others  that  the  paper  was  small  and  new,  but  that 
the  constructive  end  would  certainly  be  held  up  on  a  level  with  the  pro- 
testing. So  I  set  to  work,  and  for  a  long  time  was  bent  upon  making 
every  article  of  mine  bear  upon  our  philosophy.  I  think  a  review  of  the 
first  volume  of  Liberty  will  show  that  nearly  every  article  explaining  its 
philosophy  and  method  was  from  my  pen.  (2) 

But  the  temptation  to  fight  and  kick  and  scratch  and  bite,  instead  of 
educate  and  construct,  was  constantly  after  me.  Many  a  resolve  did  I 
make  to  leave  the  fighting  department  to  you,  and  attend  strictly  to  the 
educational,  but,  alas  !  proved  too  weak,  till  finally  a  well-developed 
habit  of  personal  sparring,  countering,  dropping  to  avoid  punishment, 
etc.,  resulted  in  something  akin  to  outright  "slugging,"  when  the  pro- 
prietor of  the  ring  put  me  outside  the  ropes,  while  Sister  Kelly  flung  after 
me  the  taunt  of  compromise,  and  Brother  Lloyd  cried  out  :  Is  this  a  free 
fight  ?  (3) 

Now,  friend  Tucker,  these  not  very  enviable  experiences  were  the  re- 
sult of  one  fatal  mistake  in  the  beginning  of  your  work, — and  one  which 
a  truly  scientific  propagandist  should  never  fall  victim  to.  It  is  that  you 
projected  your  propaganda  from  the  protest  rather  than  from  the  basic 
affirmation  of  Liberty.    The  affirmation  is  primary,  the  protest  is  second- 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND   THE  STATE.  107 


ary.  Though  the  protest  logically  leads  back  to  the  affirmation,  the 
process  is  always  the  unnatural  one  of  walking  backwards.  If  you  develop 
your  propaganda  logically  from  step  to  step,  as  projected  from  your  affir- 
mation, the  protests  go  along  with  it  and  are  always  fortified  in  the 
accompanying  philosophical  base  of  supplies.  Meanwhile  education  and 
construction  are  the  natural  work  in  hand.  But  if  you  start  out  by  de- 
ploying recklessly  ahead  with  your  protest,  the  process  of  walking  back- 
wards to  your  base  of  supplies  is  so  unnatural,  and  the  temptation  to 
fight  instead  of  construct  so  great,  that  you  soon  fight  yourself  so  far 
away  from  your  supplies  that  the  objector  naturally  cries  out  on  every 
side  :  "Well,  what  have  you  behind  you,  whither  would  you  lead  us,  and 
what  shall  protect  us  when  you  get  there?"  You  must  therefore  take 
every  individual  recruit  back  to  your  philosophical  commissary  depart- 
ment, where  you  do  not  take  it  with  you.  (4) 

As  to  the  term  Anarchism,  I  have  grown  to  be  convinced  that  it  is 
partial,  vague,  misleading,  and  not  a  comprehensive  scientific  comple- 
ment of  Individualism.  If  it  means  a  protest  against  the  existing  polit- 
ical State,  then  I  am,  of  course,  an  Anarchist.  You  say  that  it  means 
more,  and  includes  a  protest  against  every  invasion  of  individual  right. 
But  this  is  merely  a  convenient  assumption,  not  warranted  by  its  ety- 
mology, which  is  purely  of  political  origin.  Proudhon,  from  whom  you 
borrowed  it,  used  it  only  when  speaking  of  political  application  of  gov- 
ernment. Most,  Parsons,  and  Seymour  base  their  protest  against  the 
existing  political  State  on  Communism,  their  model  of  social  order. 
You  base  yours  on  voluntary  co-operation  of  individual  sovereigns, — your 
model.  Now,  if  Anarchism  is  merely  a  protest  against  the  existing  State, 
then,  as  friend  Morse  truly  says,  you  have  no  more  right  to  say  that  they 
are  not  Anarchists  than  they  have  to  say  that  you  are  not  one.  If  you 
are  all  Anarchists,  and  become  such  from  principles  in  direct  antagonism 
to  each  other,  then  who  is  an  Anarchist  and  who  is  not,  and  what  relia- 
bility attaches  to  it  as  a  scientific  protest  ?  (5) 

Moreover,  every  man  has  the  right  to  be  understood.  If  you  stretch 
the  scope  of  Anarchy  beyond  the  political  sphere,  then  it  plainly  comes 
to  mean  without  guiding  principle, — the  very  opposite  of  what  Individual- 
ism logically  leads  to.  Anarchy  means  opposed  to  the  archos,  or  politi- 
cal leader,  because  the  motive  principle  of  politics  is  force.  If  you  take 
the  archos  out  of  politics,  he  becomes  the  very  thing  you  want  as  an  Indi- 
vidualist, since  he  is  a  leader  by  voluntary  selection.  It  will  not  do,  then, 
to  stretch  the  scope  of  Anarchism  beyond  political  government,  else  you 
defeat  your  own  purpose.  It  must,  therefore,  stay  within  the  boundaries 
of  politics,  and,  staying  there,  is  only  a  partial  and  quite  unscientific  term 
to  cover  the  whole  protest  which  complements  Individualism.  (6) 

When  I  am  asked  if  I  am  an  Anarchist,  the  person  who  asks  it  wants  to 
know  if  I  am  the  kind  of  person  he  thinks  I  am, — one  believing  in  no 
guiding  principle  of  social  administration.  In  duty  to  myself  I  am  obliged 
to  say  no.  This  is  the  eternal  mischief  which  follows  from  defining  one's 
self  through  his  protest,  rather  than  his  affirmation.  It  is  a  position  which 
everyone  owes  to  himself  to  keep  out  of,  where  the  protest  is  deduced 
from  a  philosophical  system.  All  the  Protestant  sects  define  themselves 
by  their  affirmations  and  not  by  their  protests,  and  so  should  all  scientific 
systems  of  sociology.  The  protest  is  none  the  less  strong — yea,  far 
stronger — when  carried  along  as  a  complement  to  the  principles  which 
create  it,  rather  than  as  a  main  term, — the  creature  usurping  the  domain 
of  its  creator.  (7) 

As  an  Individualist,  I  find  the  political  State  a  consequent  rather  than 


io8 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


an  antecedent.  By  making  your  protest  your  main  term,  the  State  must 
be  made  antecedent,  which  it  is  not.  If  you  think  the  State  the  efficient 
cause  of  tyranny  over  individuals,  I  take  it  you  are  beclouded  in  a  most 
radical  delusion,  into  which  I  could  easily  turn  a  flood  of  light,  had  I  not 
already  encroached  too  much  on  your  space.  The  State  is  a  variable 
quantity, — expanding  just  in  proportion  as  previous  surrenders  of  individ- 
ual sovereignty  give  it  material.  The  initial  cause  is,  however,  the  sur- 
rendering individual,  the  State  being  only  possible  after  the  surrender. 
Hence  the  individual  is  the  proper  objective  point  of  reform.  As  he  is  re- 
formed, the  State  disappears  of  itself.  (8) 

This  subject  is  so  rich  in  thought  that  I  could  fill  the  whole  edition  of 
Liberty,  and  then  not  have  said  half  that  is  still  pertinent  to  what  I  have 
begun.  Having  already  spent  too  much  of  my  life  in  fighting  and  trying 
to  pull  things  around  by  the  tail  rather  than  by  the  head  and  heart,  I  pro- 
pose to  spend  the  remainder  of  it  in  constructive  educational  work.  Fight- 
ing with  tongue  and  pen  is  simply  a  process  of  spiritual  killing,  differing 
from  other  killing  only  in  method.  While  there  is  so  much  pressing  con- 
structive work  to  be  done,  I  prefer  to  leave  the  fighting  line  of  propaganda 
to  those  whose  temperament  and  constitution  make  them  better  fighters 
than  builders.  So  go  on  kicking  up  the  Anarchistic  dust  at  the  tail  end  of 
the  beast  of  despotism,  but  pardon  me  if,  having  been  a  reform  tail-twister 
all  my  life,  I  am  trying  to  get  a  little  nearer  the  head  and  horns  of  the 
beast  and  finish  up  my  work  on  that  end. 

Unnatural  government  inevitably  follows  unnatural  conditions,  and  mere 
scolding  and  kicking  and  protesting  to  all  eternity  will  never  change  this 
stern  law  of  nature  by  which  she  secures  self-preservation.  That  diseased 
form  of  social  administration  known  as  the  State  belongs  in  nature  to  that 
diseased  condition  known  as  centralization,  in  place  of  localization.  New 
York  and  other  cities,  the  places  where  the  State  chiefly  draws  its  material 
for  rent,  usury,  and  individual  slavery  in  general,  are  ulcers  on  the  face  of 
this  planet.  Localize  their  populations  over  the  soil,  with  individuals 
not  only  claiming,  but  utilizing,  their  right  to  the  soil  and  other  means  of 
sovereignty,  and  nineteen-twentieths  of  the  State  in  this  country  would 
cease  to  be.  Yet  thousands  of  miserable  servile  wretches  in  New  York 
wiil  go  to  labor  meetings  and  shout,  "  The  land  belongs  to  the  people  ! " 
while  they  cannot  be  coaxed  or  whipped  out  of  this  stinking  nest  of  usury 
and  political  corruption,  though  you  should  offer  them  plenty  of  good 
land  for  nothing.  ,  In  fact,  large  tracts  across  the  river  in  New  Jersey  can 
be  had  for  next  to  nothing,  the  young  men  of  those  sections  preferring  to 
let  their  fathers'  homes  and  lands  rot  and  run  to  waste  in  order  to  crowd 
into  New  York  with  the  rest  of  the  vulgar  herd,  with  future  visions  of  du 
plicated  Jay  Goulds  in  mind.  I  say  that,  until  we  can  get  more  manly  and 
sober  incentive  into  individuals,  the  New  Yorks  and  Chicagos  will  press 
and  stink  themselves  into  such  intolerable  political  corruption  and  general 
demoralization  that  the  merciful  torch  alone  can  rid  humanity  of  them. 
To  cry  Anarchy  in  such  communities  is  futile,  unless  you  cry  it  in  its  worst 
sense,  and  that  is  already  well-nigh  realized. 

Yet,  friend  Tucker,  you  have  always  treated  with  contempt  my  proposal 
to  warn  individuals  to  get  out  of  these  cities  and  colonize  on  the  soil,  un- 
der conditions  that  alone  make  voluntary  government  possible.  You  say 
great  cities  are  blessings,  and  that  the  proper  thing  for  these  low-motived, 
noisy  wretches  who  cry  in  labor  meetings,  "The  land  for  the  people  !  "  is 
to  stay  right  here  and  fight  it  out.  You  seem  possessed  with  the  unfortu- 
nate delusion  that  natural  government  is  possible  in  this  crowded  hole, 
where  even  the  rich  sleep  in  brown-stone  stalls,  and  the  surroundings  of 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE.  IO9 

great  masses  of  the  people  are  more  than  beastly.  So  long  as  industry, 
commerce,  and  domicile  are  centralized,  the  necessary  conditions  of  indi- 
vidual sovereignty  are  physically  impossible,  while  usury  is  invited,  and 
the  patched-up  fraud  which  goes  by  the  name  of  government  becomes  the 
necessary  arrangement  for  holding  the  diseased  conditions  together,  pend- 
ing the  inevitable  day  when  fire  and  dynamite  will  come  to  remove  these 
social  ulcers,  in  order  that  the  general  body  social  may  survive.  I  sincerely 
hope  you  will  look  into  these  matters  more  seriously,  and  insist  on  lo- 
calization, the  social  expression  of  Individualism.  (9) 

The  name  Liberty,  so  artistically  inscribed  on  your  editorial  shingle,  ex- 
presses neither  the  affirmation  nor  the  protest  of  our  system,  but  is  simply 
an  auxiliary  term  between  them.  I  think  it  unfortunate  that  your  paper 
was  not  named  "The  Individualist,"  and  I  have  in  mind  a  name  even 
nearer  the  centre  than  that.  Had  our  propaganda  been  started  on  the  cen- 
tre from  the  first,  we  should  probably  have  been  far  along  in  the  construc- 
tive educational  work,  rather  than  come  to  whipping  about  in  the  tangle- 
brush  of  misunderstanding.  But  it  is  probably  all  for  the  best,  and,  what- 
ever may  be  the  mistakes  of  its  pioneers,  the  new  structure  is  bound  by 
and  by  to  take  definite  shape  and  avert  the  social  suicide  which  the  exist- 
ing order  is  so  rapidly  precipitating.  (10) 

Henry  Appleton. 

The  foregoing  article  has  been  in  my  hands  some  time,  the 
pressure  on  these  columns  having  compelled  its  postponement. 
To  this  delay  of  several  weeks  in  publication,  however,  I  am 
the  more  easily  reconciled  by  the  fact  that  its  writer  had 
himself  affected  its  timeliness,  nearly  as  much  as  was  possible, 
by  a  delay  of  several  months  in  its  preparation.  The  "  arbi- 
trary side-tracking  "  of  which  he  complains,  and  out  of  which 
it  grows,  occurred  last  August,  and,  if  his  defensive  protest 
seems  at  all  stale  in  February,  it  should  be  remembered  that 
it  would  not  have  charmed  by  its  freshness  in  January.  But 
principles  never  grow  old,  and,  looked  at  in  their  light,  Mr. 
Appleton's  words  are  as  wise  or  as  foolish  to-day  as  they  ever 
were  or  ever  will  be. 

Speaking  exactly,  all  voluntary  acts  are  arbitrary,  inasmuch 
as  they  are  performed  in  the  exercise  of  will,  and  in  that  sense 
of  course  the  "  side-tracking  "  of  Mr.  Appleton  was  an  ar- 
bitrary act.  But  in  no  objectionable  sense  was  it  arbitrary,  in 
no  sense  was  it  despotic.  Mr.  Appleton  having  announced 
that  the  principal  object  for  which  he  and  I  had  so  long  edi- 
torially co-operated  had  become  to  him  a  secondary  and  com- 
paratively trivial  object,  it  should  have  been  evident  to  him, 
as  it  was  to  me  and  to  nearly  everybody  else,  that  our  co-oper- 
ation in  future  could  not  be  what  it  had  been.  After  such  a 
declaration,  my  act  became  a  matter  of  course.  Instead  of 
being  despotic,  it  was  almost  perfunctory.  He  took  the  side 
track  himself  ;  I  but  officially  registered  his  course. 

I  appreciate  the  spirit  of  condescension  and  self-abasement 


no 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


which  has  finally  permitted  Mr.  Appleton  to  continue  con- 
troversy with  so  unworthy  an  antagonist  as  myself  and  to 
place  himself  on  a  level  with  that  inferior  race  of  beings  who 
write  for  Liberty  non-editorially,  and  in  this  obliteration  of 
self  I  feebly  emulate  him  by  consenting  to  let  him  fill  these 
columns  with  his  defence  or  explanation  after  he  had  ignored 
the  invitation  which  I  had  extended  him  to  do  so  long  enough 
to  ascertain  that  he  could  not  procure  its  publication  else- 
where. 

After  these  preliminaries,  I  may  proceed  to  consider  Mr. 
Appleton's  arguments,  numbering  the  points  as  I  deal  with 
them,  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  repeating  the  statements 
criticised. 

(1)  I  do  not  admit  anything,  except  the  existence  of  the 
individual,  as  a  condition  of  his  sovereignty.  To  say  that  the 
sovereignty  of  the  individual  is  conditioned  by  Liberty  is 
simply  another  way  of  saying  that  it  is  conditioned  by  itself. 
To  condition  it  by  the  cost  principle  is  equivalent  to  institut- 
ing the  cost  principle  by  authority, — an  attempted  fusion  of 
Anarchism  with  State  Socialism  which  I  have  always  under- 
stood Mr.  Appleton  to  rebel  against. 

(2)  To  bear  out  this  statement  Mr.  Appleton  would  have 
to  prove  himself  the  author  of  nearly  every  article  that  ap- 
peared in  the  first  volume  of  Liberty,  whereas,  as  a  general 
thing,  he  wrote  but  one  article  for  each  number.  Nine  tenths 
of  the  editorial  matter  printed  in  Liberty  has  been  written  to 
explain  its  philosophy  and  method.  It  is  true  that  Mr.  Apple- 
ton  has  used  the  words  philosophy  and  method  oftener  than 
any  other  writer,  but  mere  repetition  of  the  words  is  neither 
philosophical  nor  rationally  methodical.  I  am  far  from  saying 
here  that  Mr.  Appleton's  articles  were  not  philosophical  ;  I 
am  only  insisting  that  their  philosophical  character  was  not 
due  to  the  use  of  the  word  philosophy,  and  that  others  which 
used  the  word  less  frequently  or  not  at  all  were  quite  as  phil- 
osophical as  his. 

(3)  Whatever  fighting  Mr.  Appleton  has  done  in  Liberty,  he 
has  done  of  his  own  motion.  It  has  always  been  his  privilege 
to  use  these  columns  as  freely  as  he  chose  (within  certain 
limits  of  space)  for  "  constructive  educational  work  "  on  the 
basis  of  individual  sovereignty.  He  has  written  as  he  pleased 
on  what  subjects  he  pleased,  with  seldom  even  a  suggestion 
from  me.  In  any  conflict  with  me  he  has  always  been  the 
attacking  party. 

(4)  It  is  true  that  the  affirmation  of  individual  sovereignty 
is  logically  precedent  to  protest  against  authority  as  such.  But 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND   THE  STATE.  Ill 

in  practice  they  are  inseparable.  To  protest  against  the  in- 
vasion of  individual  sovereignty  is  necessarily  to  affirm  indi- 
vidual sovereignty.  The  Anarchist  always  carries  his  base  of 
supplies  with  him.  He  cannot  fight  away  from  it.  The 
moment  he  does  so  he  becomes  an  Archist.  This  protest 
contains  all  the  affirmation  that  there  is.  As  I  have  pointed 
out  to  Comrade  Lloyd,  Anarchy  has  no  side  that  is  affirma- 
tive in  the  sense  of  constructive.  Neither  as  Anarchists 
nor — what  is  practically  the  same  thing — as  individual  sov- 
ereigns have  we  any  constructive  work  to  do,  though  as  pro- 
gressive beings  we  have  plenty  of  it.  But,  if  we  had  perfect 
liberty,  we  might,  if  we  chose,  remain  utterly  inactive  and  still 
be  individual  sovereigns.  Mr.  Appleton's  unenviable  exper- 
iences are  due  to  no  mistake  of  mine,  but  to  his  own  folly  in 
acknowledging  the  pertinence  of  the  hackneyed  cry  for  con- 
struction, which  loses  none  of  its  nonsense  on  the  lips  of 
a  Circuit  Court  Judge. 

(5)  I  have  asked  friend  Morse  whether  he  ever  made  the 
statement  here  attributed  to  him,  and  he  says  that  he  never 
did.  But  I  scarcely  needed  to  ask  him.  He  and  I  have  not 
kept  intellectual  company  these  fifteen  years  to  the  end  that 
he  should  so  misunderstand  me.  He  knows  perfectly  well 
that  I  base  my  assertion  that  the  Chicago  Communists  are  not 
Anarchists  entirely  on  the  ground  that  Anarchism  means 
a  protest  against  every  form  of  invasion.  (Whether  this 
definition  is  etymologically  correct  I  will  show  in  the  next 
paragraph.)  Those  who  protest  against  the  existing  political 
State,  with  emphasis  on  the  existing,  are  not  Anarchists,  but 
Archists.  In  objecting  to  a  special  form  or  method  of  in- 
vasion, they  tacitly  acknowledge  the  rightfulness  of  some 
other  form  or  method  of  invasion.  Proudhon  never  fought 
any  particular  State  ;  he  fought  the  institution  itself,  as 
necessarily  negative  of  individual  sovereignty,  whatever  form 
it  may  take.  His  use  of  the  word  Anarchism  shows  that  he 
considered  it  coextensive  with  individual  sovereignty.  If  his 
applications  of  it  were  directed  against  political  government, 
it  was  because  he  considered  political  government  the  only 
invader  of  individual  sovereignty  worth  talking  about,  having 
no  knowledge  of  Mr.  Appleton's  "  comprehensive  philosophy," 
which  thinks  it  takes  cognizance  of  a  "  vast  mountain  of  gov- 
ernment outside  of  the  organized  State."  The  reason  why 
Most  and  Parsons  are  not  Anarchists,  while  I  am  one,  is  be- 
cause their  Communism  is  another  State,  while  my  voluntary 
co-operation  is  not  a  State  at  all.  It  is  a  very  easy  matter  to 
tell  who  is  an  Anarchist  and  who  is  not.    One  question  will 


112 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


always  readily  decide  it.  Do  you  believe  in  any  form  of  im- 
position upon  the  human  will  by  force  ?  If  you  do,  you  are 
not  an  Anarchist.  If  you  do  not,  you  are  an  Anarchist.  What 
can  any  one  ask  more  reliable,  more  scientific,  than  this  ? 

(6)  Anarchy  does  not  mean  simply  opposed  to  the  archos, 
or  political  leader.  It  means  opposed  to  arche.  Now,  arche, 
in  the  first  instance,  means  beginning,  origin.  From  this  it 
comes  to  mean  a  first  principle,  an  element  ;  then  first  place, 
supreme  power,  sovereignty,  dominion,  command,  authority  j  and 
finally  a  sovereignty,  an  empire,  a  realm,  a  ?nagistracy,  a  govern- 
mental office.  Etymologically,  then,  the  word  anarchy  may 
have  several  meanings,  among  them,  as  Mr.  Appleton  says, 
without  guiding  principle,  and  to  this  use  of  the  word  I  have 
never  objected,  always  striving,  on  the  contrary,  to  interpret 
in  accordance  with  their  definition  the  thought  of  those  who 
so  use  it.  But  the  word  Anarchy  as  a  philosophical  term  and 
the  word  Anarchist  as  the  name  of  a  philosophical  sect  were 
first  appropriated  in  the  sense  of  opposition  to  dominion,  to 
authority,  and  are  so  held  by  right  of  occupancy,  which  fact 
makes  any  other  philosophical  use  of  them  improper  and  con- 
fusing. Therefore,  as  Mr.  Appleton  does  not  make  the  polit- 
ical sphere  coextensive  with  dominion  or  authority,  he  cannot 
claim  that  Anarchy,  when  extended  beyond  the  political  sphere, 
necessarily  comes  to  mean  without  guiding  principle,  for  it  may 
mean,  and  by  appropriation  does  mean,  without  dominion,  with- 
out authority.  Consequently  it  is  a  term  which  completely  and 
scientifically  covers  the  individualistic  protest. 

(7)  The  misunderstandings  of  which  Mr.  Appleton  has  been 
a  victim  are  not  the  result  of  his  defining  himself  through  his 
protest,  for  he  would  not  have  avoided  them  had  he  defined 
himself  through  his  affirmation  and  called  himself  an  Individ- 
ualist. I  could  scarcely  name  a  word  that  has  been  more 
abused,  misunderstood,  and  misinterpreted  than  Individualism. 
Mr.  Appleton  makes  so  palpable  a  point  against  himself  in  in- 
stancing the  Protestant  sects  that  it  is  really  laughable  to  see 
him  try  to  use  it  against  me.  However  it  may  be  with  the 
Protestant  sects,  the  one  great  Protestant  body  itself  was  born 
of  protest,  suckled  by  protest,  named  after  protest,  and  lived 
on  protest  until  the  days  of  its  usefulness  were  over.  If  such 
instances  proved  anything,  plenty  of  them  might  be  cited 
against  Mr.  Appleton.  For  example,  taking  one  of  more  re- 
cent date,  I  might  pertinently  inquire  which  contributed  most 
to  the  freedom  of  the  negro, — those  who  defined  themselves 
through  their  affirmations  as  the  Liberty  Party  or  as  Coloniza- 
tionists,  or  those  who  defined  themselves  through  their  protests 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND  THE  STATE.  II3 


as  the  Anti-Slavery  Society  or  as  Abolitionists.  Unquestion- 
ably the  latter.  And  when  human  slavery  in  all  its  forms 
shall  have  disappeared,  I  fancy  that  the  credit  of  the  victory 
will  be  given  quite  as  exclusively  to  the  Anarchists,  and  that 
these  latter-day  Colonizationists,  of  whom  Mr.  Appleton  has 
suddenly  become  so  enamored,  will  be  held  as  innocent  of  its 
overthrow  as  are  their  predecessors  and  namesakes  of  the  over- 
throw of  chattel  slavery. 

(8)  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  Mr.  Appleton  took  up  so  much 
space  with  other  matters  that  he  could  not  turn  his  "  flood  of 
light  "  into  my  "  delusion  "  that  the  State  is  the  efficient  cause 
of  tyranny  over  individuals  ;  for  the  question  whether  this  is 
a  delusion  or  not  is  the  very  heart  of  the  issue  between  us. 
He  has  asserted  that  there  is  a  vast  mountain  of  government 
outside  of  the  organized  State,  and  that  our  chief  battle  is 
with  that ;  I,  on  the  contrary,  have  maintained  that  practically 
almost  all  the  authority  against  which  we  have  to  contend  is 
exercised  by  the  State,  and  that,  when  we  have  abolished  the 
State,  the  struggle  for  individual  sovereignty  will  be  well-nigh 
over.  I  have  shown  that  Mr.  Appleton,  to  maintain  his  posi- 
tion, must  point  out  this  vast  mountain  of  government  and  tell 
us  definitely  what  it  is  and  how  it  acts,  and  this  is  what  the 
readers  of  Liberty  have  been  waiting  to  see  him  do.  But  he 
no  more  does  it  in  his  last  article  than  in  his  first.  And  his 
only  attempt  to  dispute  my  statement  that  the  State  is  the 
efficient  cause  of  tyranny  over  individuals  is  confined  to  two  or 
three  sentences  which  culminate  in  the  conclusion  that  the 
initial  cause  is  the  surrendering  individual.  I  have  never  de- 
nied it,  and  am  charmed  by  the  air  of  innocence  with  which 
this  substitution  of  initial  for  efficient  is  effected.  Of  initial 
causes  finite  intelligence  knows  nothing  ;  it  can  only  know 
causes  as  more  or  less  remote.  But  using  the  word  initial  in 
the  sense  of  remoter,  I  am  willing  to  admit,  for  the  sake  of 
the  argument  (though  it  is  not  a  settled  matter),  that  the 
initial  cause  was  the  surrendering  individual.  Mr.  Appleton 
doubtless  means  voluntarily  surrendering  individual,  for  com- 
pulsory surrender  would  imply  the  prior  existence  of  a  power 
to  exact  it,  or  a  primitive  form  of  State.  But  the  State,  hav- 
ing come  into  existence  through  such  voluntary  surrender, 
becomes  a  positive,  strong,  growing,  encroaching  institution, 
which  expands,  not  by  further  voluntary  surrenders,  but  by 
exacting  surrenders  from  its  individual  subjects,  and  which 
contracts  only  as  they  successfully  rebel.  That,  at  any  rate,  is 
what  it  is  to-day,  and  hence  it  is  the  efficie?it  cause  of  tyranny. 
The  only  sense,  then,  in  which  it  is  true  that  "  the  individual 


H4 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


is  the  proper  objective  point  of  reform"  is  this, — that  he  must 
be  penetrated  with  the  Anarchistic  idea  and  taught  to  rebel. 
But  this  is  not  what  Mr.  Appleton  means.  If  it  were,  his 
criticism  would  not  be  pertinent,  for  I  have  never  advocated 
any  other  method  of  abolishing  the  State.  The  logic  of  his 
position  compels  another  interpretation  of  his  words, — namely, 
that  the  State  cannot  disappear  until  the  individual  is  per- 
fected. In  saying  which,  Mr.  Appleton  joins  hands  with 
those  wise  persons  who  admit  that  Anarchy  will  be  practi- 
cable when  the  millennium  arrives.  It  is  an  utter  abandon- 
ment of  Anarchistic  Socialism.  No  doubt  it  is  true  that,  if 
the  individual  could  perfect  himself  while  the  barriers  to  his 
perfection  are  standing,  the  State  would  afterwards  disappear. 
Perhaps,  too,  he  could  go  to  heaven,  if  he  could  lift  himself 
by  his  boot-straps. 

(9)  If  one  must  favor  colonization,  or  localization,  as  Mr. 
Appleton  calls  it,  as  a  result  of  looking  "  seriously  "  into  these 
matters,  then  he  must  have  been  trifling  with  them  for  a  long 
time.  He  has  combatted  colonization  in  these  columns  more 
vigorously  than  ever  I  did  or  can,  and  not  until  comparatively 
lately  did  he  write  anything  seeming  to  favor  it.  Even  then  he 
declared  that  he  was  not  given  over  to  the  idea,  and  seemed 
only  to  be  making  a  tentative  venture  into  a  region  which  he 
had  not  before  explored.  If  he  has  since  become  a  settler,  it 
only  indicates  to  my  mind  that  he  has  not  yet  fathomed  the 
real  cause  of  the  people's  wretchedness.  That  cause  is  State 
interference  with  natural  economic  processes.  The  people  are 
poor  and  robbed  and  enslaved,  not  because  "  industry,  com- 
merce, and  domicile  are  centralized," — in  fact,  such  centrali- 
zation has,  on  the  whole,  greatly  benefited  them, — but  because 
the  control  of  the  conditions  under  which  industry,  commerce, 
and  domicile  are  exercised  and  enjoyed  is  centralized.  The 
localization  needed  is  not  the  localization  of  persons  in  space, 
but  of  powers  in  persons, — that  is,  the  restriction  of  power  to 
self  and  the  abolition  of  power  over  others.  Government 
makes  itself  felt  alike  in  country  and  in  city,  capital  has  its 
usurious  grip  on  the  farm  as  surely  as  on  the  workshop,  and 
the  oppressions  and  exactions  of  neither  t  government  nor 
capital  can  be  avoided  by  migration.  L 'Etat,  c'est  Vennemi. 
The  State  is  the  enemy,  and  the  best  means  of  fighting  it  can 
only  be  found  in  communities  already  existing.  If  there 
were  no  other  reason  for  opposing  colonization,  this  in  itself 
would  be  sufficient. 

(10)  I  do  not  know  what  Mr.  Appleton  means  when  he  calls 
Liberty  an  auxiliary  term  between  the  affirmation  and  the 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,  AND   THE  STATE.  I15 

protest  of  our  system,  and  I  doubt  if  he  knows  himself. 
That  it  expresses  practically  the  same  idea  as  "  The  Individu- 
alist" and  is  a  much  better  name  for  a  paper  I  think  most 
persons  will  agree.  If,  "  had  our  propaganda  been  started  on 
the  centre  from  the  first,  we  should  probably  have  been  far 
along  in  constructive  educational  work,"  and  if,  assuming,  that 
we  are  not  far  along  in  it,  it  is  "  probably  all  for  the  best," 
then  it  is  probably  all  for  the  best  that  our  propaganda  was 
not  started  on  the  centre,  assuming  that  it  was  not  so  started  ; 
and  in  that  case  what  is  all  this  fuss  about  ?  Optimists  should 
never  complain. 


A  LIBERTARIAN'S  PET  DESPOTISMS. 

{Liberty,  January  1,  1887.I 

"  There  is  nothing  any  better  than  Liberty  and  nothing  any 
worse  than  despotism,  be  it  the  theological  despotism  of  the 
skies,  the  theocratic  despotism  of  kings,  or  the  democratic 
despotism  of  majorities  ;  and  the  labor  reformer  who  starts 
out  to  combat  the  despotism  of  capital  with  other  despotism 
no  better  lacks  only  power  to  be  w^orse  than  the  foe  he  en- 
counters." These  are  the  words  of  my  brother  Pinney  of 
the  Winsted  Press,  Protectionist  and  Greenbacker, — that  is, 
a  man  who  combats  the  despotism  of  capital  with  that  despot- 
ism which  denies  the  liberty  to  buy  foreign  goods  untaxed 
and  that  despotism  which  denies  the  liberty  to  issue  notes  to 
circulate  as  currency.  Mr.  Pinney  is  driven  into  this  incon- 
sistency* by  his  desire  for  high  wages  and  an  abundance  of 
money,  which  he  thinks  it  impossible  to  get  except  through 
tariff  monopoly  and  money  monopoly.  But  religious  despot- 
tism  pleads  a  desire  for  salvation,  and  moral  despotism  pleads 
a  desire  for  purity,  and  prohibitory  despotism  pleads  a  desire 
for  sobriety.  Yet  all  these  despotisms  lead  to  hell,  though  all 
these  hells  are  paved  with  good  intentions  ;  and  Mr.  Pinney's 
hells  are  just  as  hot  as  any.  The  above  extract  shows  that 
he  knows  Liberty  to  be  the  true  way  of  salvation.  Why, 
then,  does  he  not  steadily  follow  it  ? 


116 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


DEFENSIVE  DESPOTISM. 

{Liberty,  January  22,  1887.] 

Mr.  Pinney,  editor  of  an  exceedingly  bright  paper,  the  Win- 
sted  Press,  recently  combated  prohibition  in  the  name  of 
Liberty.  Thereupon  I  showed  him  that  his  argument  was 
equally  good  against  his  own  advocacy  of  a  tariff  on  imports 
and  an  exclusive  government  currency.  Carefully  avoiding 
any  allusion  to  the  analogy,  Mr.  Pinney  now  rejoins  :  "  In 
brief,  we  are  despotic  because  we  believe  it  is  our  right  to  de- 
fend ourselves  from  foreign  invaders  on  the  one  side  and 
wild-cat  swindlers  on  the  other."  Yes,  just  as  despotic  as  the 
prohibitionists  who  believe  it  is  their  right  to  defend  themselves 
from  drunkards  and  rumsellers.  In  another  column  of  the 
same  issue  of  the  Press  I  find  a  reference  to  a  "  logical  Pro- 
crustean bed  "  kept  in  Liberty  s  office  to  which  I  fit  my  friends 
and  foes  by  stretching  out  and  lopping  off  their  limbs.  It  is  a 
subject  on  which  the  dismembered  Mr.  Pinney  speaks  feel- 
ingly. 


STILL  IN  THE  PROCRUSTEAN  BED. 

{Liberty,  February  12,  1887.] 

Continuing  his  controversy  with  me  regarding  the  logic  of 
the  principle  of  liberty,  Mr.  Pinney  of  the  Winsted  Press  says  : 

There  is  no  analogy  between  prohibition  and  the  tariff  ;  the  tariff  pro- 
hibits no  man  from  indulging  his  desire  to  trade  where  he  pleases.  It  is 
simply  a  tax.  It  is  slightly  analogous  to  a  license  tax  for  the  privilege  of 
selling  liquor  in  a  given  territory,  but  prohibition,  in  theory  if  not  in  prac- 
tice, is  an  entirely  different  matter. 

This  is  a  distinction  without  a  difference.  The  so-called 
prohibitory  liquor  law  prohibits  no  man,  even  theoretically, 
from  indulging  his  desire  to  sell  liquor  ;  it  simply  subjects  the 
man  so  indulging  to  fine  and  imprisonment.  The  tax  imposed 
by  the  tariff  law  and  the  fine  imposed  by  the  prohibitory  law 
share  alike  the  nature  of  a  penalty,  and  are  equally  invasive  of 
liberty.  Mr.  Pinney 's  argument,  though  of  no  real  validity  in 
any  case,  would  present  at  least  a  show  of  reason  in  the  mouth 
of  a  "revenue  reformer";  but,  coming  from  one  who  scorns 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND  THE  STATE.  1 1 7 


the  idea  of  raising  revenue  by  the  tariff  and  who  has  declared 
explicitly  that  he  desires  the  tariff  to  be  so  effectively  prohib- 
itory that  it  shall  yield  no  revenue  at  all,  it  lacks  even  the 
appearance  of  logic. 

Equally  lame  is  Mr.  Pinney's  apology  for  a  compulsory 
money  system. 

As  for  the  exclusive  government  currency  which  we  advocate,  and 
which  Mr.  Tucker  tortures  into  prohibition  of  individual  property  scrip, 
there  is  just  as  much  analogy  as  there  is  between  prohibition  and  the 
exclusive  law-making,  treaty-making,  war-declaring,  or  any  other  powers 
delegated  to  government  because  government  better  than  the  individual 
can  be  intrusted  with  and  make  use  of  these  powers. 

Just  as  much,  I  agree  ;  and  in.  this  I  can  see  a  good  reason 
why  Mr.  Pinney,  who  started  out  with  the  proposition  that 
"  there  is  nothing  any  better  than  liberty  and  nothing  any 
worse  than  despotism,"  should  oppose  law-making,  treaty- 
making,  war-declaring,  etc.,  but  none  whatever  why  he  should 
favor  an  exclusive  government  currency.  How  much  "  tor- 
ture "  it  requires  to  extract  the  idea  of  "  prohibition  of  indi- 
vidual property  scrip"  from  the  idea  of  an  "  exclusive  govern- 
ment currency"  our  readers  will  need  no  help  in  deciding,  unless 
the  word  "  exclusive "  has  acquired  some  new  meaning  as 
unknown  to  them  as  it  is  to  me. 

But  Mr.  Pinney's  brilliant  ideas  are  not  exhausted  yet.  He 
continues  : 

Government  prohibits  the  taking  of  private  property  for  public  uses 
without  just  compensation.  Therefore,  if  we  fit  Mr.  Tucker's  Procrus- 
tean bed,  we  cannot  sustain  this  form  of  prohibition  and  consistently  op- 
pose prohibition  of  liquor  drinking  !  This  is  consistency  run  mad,  "  anal- 
ogy "  reduced  to  an  absurdity.  We  are  astonished  that  Mr.  Tucker  can 
be  guilty  of  it. 

So  am  I.  Or  rather,  I  should  be  astonished  if  I  had  been 
guilty  of  it.  But  I  haven't.  To  say  nothing  of  the  fact  that 
the  governmental  prohibition  here  spoken  of  is  a  prohibition 
iaid  by  government  upon  itself,  and  that  such  prohibitions  can 
never  be  displeasing  to  an  Anarchist,  it  is  clear  that  the  taking 
of  private  property  from  persons  who  have  violated  the  rights 
of  nobody  is  invasion,  and  to  the  prohibition  of  invasion  no 
friend  of  liberty  has  any  objection.  Mr.  Pinney  has  already 
resorted  to  the  plea  of  invasion  as  an  excuse  for  his  advocacy 
of  a  tariff,  and  it  would  be  a  good  defence  if  he  could  estab- 
lish it.  But  I  have  pointed  out  to  him  that  the  pretence  that 
the  foreign  merchant  who  sells  goods  to  American  citizens  or 
the  individual  who  offers  his  I  O  U  are  invaders  is  as  flimsy 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


as  the  prohibitionist's  pretence  that  the  rumseller  and  the 
drunkard  are  invaders.  Neither  invasion  nor  evasion  will  re- 
lieve Mr.  Pinney  of  his  dilemma.  If  he  has  no  more  effective 
weapons,  what'he  dubs  "  Boston  analogy  "  is  in  no  danger  from 
his  assaults.  t 


PINNEY  STRUGGLING  WITH  PROCRUSTES. 

[Liberty,  March  12,  1887.] 

It  is  the  habit  of  the  wild  Westerner,  whenever  he  cannot 
answer  a  Bostonian's  arguments,  to  string  long  words  into  long 
sentences  in  mockery  of  certain  fancied  peculiarities  of  the 
Boston  mind.  Editor  Pinney  of  the  Winsted  Press  is  not 
exactly  a  wild  Westerner,  but  he  lives  just  far  enough  beyond 
the  confines  of  Massachusetts  to  enable  him  to  resort  to  this 
device  in  order  to  obscure  the  otherwise  obvious  necessity  of 
meeting  me  on  reason' s  ground.  His  last  reply  to  me  fruit- 
lessly fills  two-thirds  of  one  of  his  long  columns  with  the 
sort  of  buncombe  referred  to,  whereas  that  amount  of  space, 
duly  applied  to  solid  argument,  might  have  sufficed  to  show 
one  of  us  in  error.  Whatever  the  characteristics  of  Boston 
intellect,  generically  speaking,  in  the  particular  Bostonian  with 
whom  he  is  now  confronted  Mr.  Pinney  would  see,  were  he  a 
student  of  human  nature,  an  extremely  hard-headed  individual, 
about  whose  mind  there  is  nothing  celestial  or  supermundane 
or  aesthetic  or  aberrant,  and  whose  only  dialectics  consists  in 
searching  faithfully  for  the  fundamental  weakness  of  his  ad- 
versary's position  and  striking  at  it  with  swift  precision,  or 
else,  finding  none  such,  in  acknowledging  defeat.  But  human 
nature — at  least,  Boston  human  nature — being  a  puzzle  to  Mr. 
Pinney,  he  mistakes  me  for  a  quibbler,  a  disputatious  advocate, 
and  a  lover  of  logomachy.  Let  us  see,  then,  by  whom  lo- 
gomachy was  first  employed  in  this  discussion. 

In  an  unguarded  moment  of  righteous  impatience  with  the 
folly  of  the  prohibitionists  Mr.  Pinney  had  given  utterance 
to  some  very  extreme  and  Anarchistic  doctrine.  I  applauded 
him,  and  ventured  to  call  his  attention  to  one  or  two  forms  of 
prohibition  other  than  that  of  the  liquor  traffic,  equally  repug- 
nant to  his  theory  of  liberty  and  yet  championed  by  him. 
One  of  these  was  the  tariff.  He  answered  me  that  "  there  is 
no  analogy  between  prohibition  and  the  tariff ;  the  tariff  pro- 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND   THE  STATE.  Tltj 


hibits  no  man  from  indulging  his  desire  to  trade  where  he 
pleases."  Right  here  logomachy  made  its  first  appearance, 
over  the  word  "  prohibit."  I  had  cited  two  forms  of  State  in- 
terference with  trade,  each  of  which  in  practice  either  annoys 
it  or  hampers  it  or  effectively  prevents  it,  according  to  circum- 
stances. This  analogy  in  substantial  results  presented  a  diffi- 
culty, which  Mr.  Pinney  tried  to  overcome  by  beginning  a  dis- 
pute over  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  prohibit," — a  matter  of 
only  formal  moment  so  far  as  the  present  discussion  is  con- 
cerned. He  declared  that  the  tariff  is  not  like  the  prohibitory 
liquor  law,  inasmuch  as  it  prohibits  nobody  from  trading 
where  he  pleases.  A  purely  nominal  distinction,  if  even  that; 
consequently  Mr.  Pinney,  in  passing  it  off  as  a  real  one,  was 
guilty  of  quibbling. 

But  I  met  Mr.  Pinney  on  his  own  ground,  allowing  that, 
speaking  exactly,  the  tariff  does  not  prohibit,  but  adding,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  neither  does  the  so-called  prohibitory 
liquor  law  ;  that  both  simply  impose  penalties  on  traders,  in 
the  one  case  as  a  condition,  in  the  other  as  a  consequence,  of 
carrying  on  their  trades.  Hence  my  analogy  still  stood,  and 
I  expected  it  to  be  grappled  with.  But  no.  Mr.  Pinney,  in 
the  very  breath  that  he  protests  against  quibbling,  insists  on 
his  quibble  by  asking  if  prison  discipline  is,  then,  so  lax  that 
convicted  liquor  sellers  can  carry  on  their  business  within  the 
walls,  and  by  supposing  that  I  would  still  think  prohibition 
did  not  prohibit,  if  the  extreme  penalty  for  liquor  selling  were 
decapitation.  I  do  not  dispute  the  fact  that  a  man  cannot 
carry  on  the  liquor  business  as  long  as  he  is  in  prison,  nor  can 
Mr.  Pinney  dispute  the  fact  that  a  man  cannot  sell  certain 
foreign  goods  in  this  country  as  long  as  he  cannot  raise  the 
money  to  pay  the  tariff  ;  and  while  I  am  confident  that  de- 
capitation, if  rigorously  enforced,  would  stop  the  liquor  traffic, 
I  am  no  less  sure  that  the  effect  on  foreign  traffic  would  be 
equally  disastrous  were  decapitation  to  be  enforced  as  a  tax 
upon  importers.  On  Mr.  Pinney's  theory  the  prohibitory 
liquor  laws  could  be  made  non-prohibitory  simply  by  chang- 
ing the  penalties  from  imprisonments  to  fines.  The  absurdity 
of  this  is  evident. 

But,  if  I  were  to  grant  that  Mr.  Pinney's  quibble  shows  that 
there  is  no  analogy  between  a  prohibitory  liquor  law  and 
a  revenue  tariff  (which  I  do  not  grant,  but  deny),  it  would 
still  remain  for  him  to  show  that  there  is  no  analogy  between 
a  prohibitory  liquor  law  and  such  a  tariff  as  he  favors, — one  so 
high  as  to  be  absolutely  prohibitory  and  yield  no  revenue  at  all, 
— or  else  admit  his  inconsistency  in  opposing  the  former  and 


120 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


not  the  latter.  He  has  not  attempted  to  meet  this  point,  even 
with  a  quibble. 

One  other  point,  however,  he  does  try  to  meet.  To  my 
statement  that  his  position  on  the  abstract  question  of  liberty 
involves  logically  opposition  to  government  in  all  its  functions 
he  makes  this  answer  : 

Between  puritan  meddling  with  a  man's  domestic  affairs,  and  necessary 
government  regulation  of  matters  which  the  individual  is  incompetent  to 
direct,  yet  which  must  be  directed  in  order  to  secure  to  the  individual  his 
rightful  liberty,  there  is  a  distance  sufficiently  large  to  give  full  play  to  our 
limited  faculties. 

But  who  is  to  judge  what  government  regulation  is  "neces- 
sary "  and  decide  what  matters  "  the  individual  is  incompetent 
to  direct  "  ?  The  majority  ?  But  the  majority  are  just  as 
likely  to  decide  that  prohibition  is  necessary  and  that  the  in- 
dividual is  incompetent  to  direct  his  appetite  as  that  a  tariff  is 
necessary  and  that  the  individual  is  incompetent  to  make  his 
own  contracts.  Mr.  Pinney,  then,  must  submit  to  the  will  of 
the  majority.  His  original  declaration,  however,  was  that 
despotism  was  despotism,  whether  exercised  by  a  monarch  or 
a  majority.  This  drives  him  back  upon  liberty  in  all  things. 
For  just  as  he  would  object  to  the  reign  of  a  monarch  disposed 
to  administer  affairs  rationally  and  equitably  simply  because 
he  was  a  monarch,  so  he  must  object  to  the  reign  of  a  majority, 
even  though  its  administration  were  his  ideal,  simply  because 
it  is  a  majority.  Mr.  Pinney  is  trying  to  serve  both  liberty 
and  authority,  and  is  making  himself  ridiculous  in  the  at- 
tempt. 


A  BACK  TOWN  HEARD  FROM. 

[Liberty,  August  13,  1887.] 

The  Winsted  Press  makes  a  long  leader  to  ridicule  the 
Anarchists  for  favoring  private  enterprise  in  the  letter-carry- 
ing business.  It  grounds  its  ridicule  on  two  claims, — first, 
that  private  enterprise  would  charge  high  rates  of  postage, 
and,  second,  that  it  would  not  furnish  transportation  to  out- 
of-the-way  points.  An  indisputable  fact  has  frequently  been 
cited  in  Liberty  which  instantly  and  utterly  overthrows  both 
of  these  claims.    Its  frequent  citation,  however,  has  had  no 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND  THE  STATE.  121 


effect  upon  the  believers  in  a  government  postal  monopoly. 
I  do  not  expect  another  repetition  to  produce  any  effect  upon 
the  Winsted  Press;  still  I  shall  try  it. 

Some  half-dozen  years  ago,  when  letter  postage  was  still 
three  cents,  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  were  doing  a  large  business  in 
carrying  letters  throughout  the  Pacific  States  and  Territories. 
Their  rate  was  five  cents,  more  than  three  of  which  they  ex- 
pended, as  the  legal  monopoly  required,  in  purchasing  of  the 
United  States  a  stamped  envelope  in  which  to  carry  the  letter 
intrusted  to  their  care.  That  is  to  say,  on  every  letter  which 
they  carried  they  had  to  pay  a  tax  of  more  than  three  cents. 
Exclusive  of  this  tax,  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  got  less  than  two  cents 
for  each  letter  which  they  carried,  while  the  government  got 
three  cents  for  each  letter  which  it  carried  itself,  and  more  than 
three  cents  for  each  letter  which  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  carried. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  cost  every  individual  five  cents  to  send 
by  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  and  only  three  to  send  by  the  govern- 
ment. Moreover,  the  area  covered  was  one  in  which  im- 
mensity of  distance,  sparseness  of  population,  and  irregulari- 
ties of  surface  made  out-of-the-way  points  unusually  difficult 
of  access.  Still,  in  spite  of  all  these  advantages  on  the  side 
of  the  government,  its  patronage  steadily  dwindled,  while  that 
of  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  as  steadily  grew.  Pecuniarily  this,  of 
course,  was  a  benefit  to  the  government.  But  for  this  very 
reason  such  a  condition  of  affairs  was  all  the  more  mortify- 
ing. Hence  the  postmaster-general  sent  a  special  commis- 
sioner to  investigate  the  matter.  He  fulfilled  his  duty  and 
reported  to  his  superior  that  WTells,  Fargo  &  Co.  were  com- 
plying with  the  law  in  every  particular,  and  were  taking  away 
the  business  of  the  government  by  furnishing  a  prompter  and 
securer  mail  service,  not  alone  to  principal  points,  but  to  more 
points  and  remoter  points  than  were  included  in  the  govern- 
ment list  of  post-offices. 

Whether  this  state  of  things  still  continues  I  do  not  know. 
I  presume,  however,  that  it  does,  though  the  adoption  of  two- 
cent  postage  may  have  changed  it.  In  either  case  the  fact 
is  one  that  triumphs  over  all  possible  sarcasms.  In  view 
of  it,  what  becomes  of  Editor  Pinney's  fear  of  ruinous  rates 
of  postage  and  his  philanthropic  anxiety  on  account  of  the 
dwellers  in  Wayback  and  Hunkertown  ? 


122 


INSTEAD  OK  A  BOOK. 


IN  FORM  A  REPLY,  IN  REALITY  A  SURRENDER. 

[Liberty,  September  10,  1887.] 

Appreciating  the  necessity  of  at  least  seeming  to  meet  the 
indisputable  fact  which  I  opposed  to  its  championship  of  gov- 
ernment postal  monopoly,  the  Winsted  Press  presents  the  fol- 
lowing ghost  of  an  answer,  which  may  be  as  convincing  to 
the  victims  of  political  superstition  as  most  materializations 
are  to  the  victims  of  religious  superstition,  but  which,  like 
those  materializations,  is  so  imperceptible  to  the  touch  of  the 
hard-headed  investigator  that,  when  he  puts  his  hand  upon  it, 
he  does  not  find  it  there. 

The  single  instance  of  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  cited  by  B.  R.  Tucker  to 
prove  the  advantage  of  private  enterprise  as  a  mail  carrier,  needs  fuller 
explanation  of  correlated  circumstances  to  show  its  true  significance. 
As  stated  by  Mr.  Tucker,  this  company  half  a  dozen  years  ago  did  a 
large  business  carrying  letters  throughout  the  Pacific  States  and  Terri- 
tories to  distant  and  sparsely  populated  places  for  five  cents  per  letter, 
paying  more  than  three  to  the  government  in  compliance  with  postal 
law  and  getting  less  than  two  for  the  trouble,  and,  though  it  cost  the 
senders  more,  the  service  was  enough  better  than  government's  to  se- 
cure the  greater  part  of  the  business. 

This  restatement  of  my  statement  is  fair  enough,  except 
that  it  but  dimly  conveys  the  idea  that  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co. 
were  carrying,  not  only  to  distant  and  sparsely  populated 
places,  but  to  places  thickly  settled  and  easy  of  access,  and 
were  beating  the  government  there  also, — a  fact  of  no  little 
importance. 

Several  facts  may  explain  this  :  1.  Undeveloped  government  service 
in  a  new  country,  distant  from  the  seat  of  government. 

Here  the  ghost  appears,  all  form  and  no  substance. 
"  John  Jones  is  a  better  messenger  than  John  Smith,"  de- 
clares the  Winsted  Press,  "  because  Jones  can  run  over 
stony  ground,  while  Smith  cannot."  "  Indeed  !"  I  answer  ; 
"  why,  then,  did  Smith  outrun  Jones  the  other  day  in  going 
from  San  Francisco  to  Wayback  ?  "  "  Oh  !  that  may  be  ex- 
plained," the  Press  rejoins,  "  by  the  fact  that  the  ground  was 
stony."  The  Press  had  complained  against  the  Anarchistic 
theory  of  free  competition  in  postal  service  that  private  en- 
terprise would  not  reach  remote  points,  while  government 
does  reach  them.    I  proved  by  facts  that  private  enterprise 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATF..  1 23 


was  more  successful  than  government  in  reaching  remote 
points.  What  sense,  then,  is  there  in  answering  that  these 
points  are  distant  from  the  government's  headquarters  and 
that  it  had  not  developed  its  service  ?  The  whole  point  lies 
in  the  fact  that  private  enterprise  was  the  first  to  develop  its 
service  and  the  most  successful  in  maintaining  it  at  a  high 
degree  of  efficiency. 

2.  Government  competition  which  kept  Wells  &  Fargo  from  charging 
monopoly  prices. 

If  the  object  of  a  government  postal  service  is  to  keep 
private  enterprise  from  charging  high  prices,  no  more  striking 
illustration  of  the  stupid  way  in  which  government  works  to 
achieve  its  objects  could  be  cited  than  its  imposition  of  a  tax 
of  two  (then  three)  cents  a  letter  upon  private  postal  com- 
panies. It  is  obvious  that  this  tax  was  all  that  kept  Wells, 
Fargo  &  Co.  from  reducing  their  letter-rate  to  three  or  even 
two  cents,  in  which  case  the  government  probably  would 
have  lost  the  remnant  of  business  which  it  still  commanded. 
This  is  guarding  against  monopoly  prices  with  a  vengeance  ! 
The  competitor,  whether  government  or  individual,  who  must 
tax  his  rival  in  order  to  live  is  no  competitor  at  all,  but  a 
monopolist  himself.  It  is  not  government  competition  that 
Anarchists  are  fighting,  but  government  monopoly.  It  should 
be  added,  however,  that,  pending  the  transformation  of  gov- 
ernments into  voluntary  associations,  even  government  com- 
petition is  unfair,  because  an  association  supported  by  com- 
pulsory taxation  could  always,  if  it  chose,  carry  the  mails  at 
less  than  cost  and  tax  the  deficit  out  of  the  people. 

3.  Other  paying  business  which  brought  the  company  into  contact  with 
remote  districts  and  warranted  greater  safeguards  to  conveyance  than 
government  then  offered  to  its  mail  carriers. 

Exactly.  What  does  it  prove  ?  Why,  that  postal  service 
and  express  service  can  be  most  advantageously  run  in  con- 
junction, and  that  private  enterprise  was  the  first  to  find  it  out. 
This  is  one  of  the  arguments  which  the  Anarchists  use. 

4.  A  difference  of  two  cents  was  not  appreciated  in  a  country  where 
pennies  were  unknown. 

Here  the  phantom  attains  the  last  degree  of  attenuation. 
If  Mr.  Pinney  will  call  at  the  Winsted  post-office,  his  post- 
master will  tell  him — what  common  sense  ought  to  have 
taught  him — that  of  all  the  stamps  used  not  over  five  per 
cent,  are  purchased  singly,  the  rest  being  taken  two,  three, 


124 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


five,  ten,  a  hundred,  or  a  thousand  at  a  time.  Californians 
are  said  to  be  very  reckless  in  the  matter  of  petty  expendi- 
tures, but  I  doubt  if  any  large  portion  of  them  would  carry 
their  prodigality  so  far  as  to  pay  five  dollars  a  hundred  for 
stamps  when  they  could  get  them  at  three  dollars  a  hundred 
on  the  next  corner. 

These  conditions  do  not  exist  elsewhere  in  this  country  at  present. 
Therefore  the  illustration  proves  nothing. 

Proves  nothing  !  Does  it  not  prove  that  private  enterprise 
outstripped  the  government  under  the  conditions  that  then 
and  there  existed,  which  were  difficult  enough  for  both,  but 
extraordinarily  embarrassing  for  the  former  ? 

We  know  that  private  enterprise  does  not  afford  express  facilities  to 
sparsely  settled  districts  throughout  the  country. 

I  know  nothing  of  the  kind.  The  express  companies  cover 
practically  the  whole  country.  They  charge  high  rates  to 
points  difficult  of  access  ;  but  this  is  only  just.  The  govern- 
ment postal  rates,  on  the  contrary,  are  unjust.  It  certainly  is 
not  fair  that  my  neighbor,  who  sends  a  hundred  letters  to 
New  York  every  year,  should  have  to  pay  two  cents  each  on 
them,  though  the  cost  of  carriage  is  but  one  cent,  simply  be- 
cause the  government  spends  a  dollar  in  carrying  for  me  one 
letter  a  year  to  Wayback,  for  which  I  also  pay  two  cents.  It 
may  be  said,  however,  that  where  each  individual  charge  is  so 
small,  a  schedule  of  rates  would  cause  more  trouble  and  ex- 
pense than  saving  ;  in  other  words,  that  to  keep  books  would 
be  poor  economy.  Very  likely  ;  and  in  that  case  no  one 
would  find  it  out  sooner  than  the  private  mail  companies. 
This,  however,  is  not  the  case  in  the  express  business,  where 
parcels  of  all  sizes  and  weights  are  carried. 

No  more  would  it  mail  facilities.  A  remarkable  exception  only  proves 
the  rule.  But,  if  private  enterprise  can  and  will  do  so  much,  why  doesn't 
it  do  it  now?  The  law  stands  no  more  in  the  way  of  Adams  Express 
than  it  did  in  the  way  of  the  Wells  &  Fargo  express. 

This  reminds  me  of  the  question  with  which  Mr.  Pinney 
closed  his  discussion  with  me  regarding  free  money.  He  de- 
sired to  know  why  the  Anarchists  did  not  start  a  free  money 
system,  saying  that  they  ought  to  be  shrewd  enough  to  devise 
some  way  of  evading  the  law.  As  if  any  competing  business 
could  be  expected  to  succeed  if  it  had  to  spend  a  fortune 
in  contesting  lawsuits  or  in  paying  a  heavy  tax  to  which  its 
rival  was  not  subject  !  So  handicapped,  it  could  not  possibly 
succeed  unless  its  work  was  of  such  a  nature  as  to  admit  the 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  125 


widest  range  of  variation  in  point  of  excellence.  This  was 
the  case  in  the  competition  between  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  and 
the  government.  The  territory  covered  was  so  ill-adapted  to 
postal  facilities  that  it  afforded  a  wide  margin  for  the  display 
of  superiority,  and  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  took  advantage  of  this 
to  such  an  extent  that  they  beat  the  government  in  spite  of 
their  handicap.  But  in  the  territory  covered  by  Adams  Ex- 
press it  is  essentially  different.  There  the"  postal  service  is  so 
simple  a  matter  that  the  possible  margin  of  superiority  would 
not  warrant  an  extra  charge  of  even  one  cent  a  letter.  But  I 
am  told  that  Adams  Express  would  be  only  too  glad  of  the 
chance  to  carry  letters  at  one  cent  each,  if  there  were  no  tax 
to  be  paid  on  the  business.  If  the  governmentalists  think 
that  the  United  States  can  beat  Adams  Express,  why  do  they 
not  dare  to  place  the  two  on  equal  terms  ?  That  is  a  fair  ques- 
tion. But  when  a  man's  hands  are  tied,  to  ask  him  why  he 
doesn't  fight  is  a  coward's  question. 


FOOL  VOTERS  AND  FOOL  EDITORS. 

[Liberty,  August  4, 188S.] 

Uncle  Sam  carries  one  hundred  pounds  of  newspapers  two  thousand 
miles  for  two  dollars,  and  still  pays  the  railroad  three  times  too  much  for 
mail  service.  An  express  company  would  charge  twenty  dollars  for  the 
same  service  ;  yet  some  people  don't  know  why  all  express  stockholders 
are  millionaires  and  the  people  getting  poorer.  In  fact,  some  people 
don't  know  anything  at  all  and  don't  want  to.  It  is  very  unfortunate 
that  such  people  have  votes. —  The  Anti- Monopolist. 

Yes,  Uncle  Sam  carries  one  hundred  pounds  of  newspapers 
two  thousand  miles,  not  for  two  dollars,  but  for  one  dollar, 
pays  the  railroad  more  than  its  services  are  worth,  and  loses 
about  five  dollars  a  trip. 

Yes,  an  express  company  would  charge  twenty  dollars  for  the 
same  service,  because  it  knows  it  would  be  folly  to  attempt  to 
compete  with  the  one-dollar  rate,  and  therefore  charges  for  its 
necessarily  limited  business  such  rates  as  those  who  desire  a 
guarantee  of  promptness  and  security  are  willing  to  pay. 

Uncle  Sam  nevertheless  continues  to  carry  at  the  one-dollar 
rate,  knowing  that  this  is  a  good  way  to  induce  the  newspapers 
to  wink  at  his  villainies,  and  that  he  can  and  does  make  up  in 
two  ways  his  loss  of  five  dollars  a  trip, — i,  by  carrying  one 
hundred  pounds  of  letters  two  thousand  miles  for  thirty-two 


126 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


dollars  and  forbidding  anybody  else  to  carry  them  for  less, 
although  the  express  companies  would  be  glad  of  the  chance 
to  do  the  same  service  for  sixteen  dollars  ;  and,  2,  by  taking 
toll  from  all  purchasers  of  whiskey  and  tobacco  at  home,  and 
of  various  other  articles  from  foreign  countries. 

And  yet  some  people  don't  know  why  the  thousands  of 
officeholders  who  are  pulling  away  at  the  public  teats  are  get- 
ting fat  while  the  people  are  getting  poorer.  In  fact,  some 
people  don't  know  anything  at  all  except,  as  Josh  Billings  said, 
"  a  grate  menny  things  that  ain't  so."  It  is  very  unfortunate 
that  such  people  are  intrusted  with  the  editing  of  newspapers. 


ERGO  AND  PRESTO  ! 

[Liberty,  July  7,  1888.] 

In  Henry  George  may  be  seen  a  pronounced  type  of  the 
not  uncommon  combination  of  philosopher  and  juggler.  He 
possesses  in  a  marked  degree  the  faculty  of  luminous  exposi- 
tion of  a  fundamental  principle,  but  this  faculty  he  supple- 
ments with  another  no  less  developed, — that  of  so  obscuring 
_  the  connection  between  his  fundamental  principle  and  the 
false  applications  thereof  which  he  attempts  that  only  a  mind 
accustomed  to  analysis  can  detect  the  flaw  and  the  fraud.  We 
see  this  in  the  numerous  instances  in  which  he  has  made  a 
magnificent  defence  of  the  principle  of  individual  liberty  in 
theory,  only  to  straightway  deny  it  in  practice,  while  at  the 
same  time  palming  off  his  denial  upon  an  admiring  follow- 
ing as  a  practical  affirmation.  Freedom  of  trade  is  the  surest 
guarantee  of  prosperity  ;  ergo,  there  must  be  perfect  liberty  of 
banking  ;  presto  !  there  shall  be  no  issue  of  money  save  by  the 
government.  Here,  by  the  sly  divorce  of  money-issuing  from 
banking,  he  seems  to  justify  the  most  ruinous  of  monopolies 
by  the  principle  of  liberty.  And  this  is  but  an  abridgment  of 
the  road  by  which  he  reaches  very  many  of  his  practical  con- 
clusions. His  simplicity  and  clearness  as  a  philosopher  so  win 
the  confidence  of  his  disciples  that  he  can  successfully  play 
the  role  of  a  prestidigitator  before  their  very  eyes.  They  do 
not  notice  the  transformation  from  logic  to  legerdemain.  For 
a  certain  distance  he  proceeds  carefully,  surely,  and  straight- 
forwardly by  the  method  of  ergo;  and  then,  when  the  minds 
of  his  followers  are  no  longer  on  the  alert,  presto  I  he  suddenly 
shouts,  and  in  a  twinkling  they  are  switched  off  upon  the  track 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,  AND  THE  STATE.  12  J 

of  error  without  a  suspicion  that  they  are  not  still  bound  direct 
for  truth.  It  is  this  power  to  prostitute  a  principle  to  the  fur- 
therance of  its  opposite,  to  use  truth  as  a  tool  of  falsehood, 
that  makes  Mr.  George  one  of  the  most  dangerous  men  among 
all  those  now  posing  as  public  teachers. 

One  of  the  latest  and  craftiest  of  his  offences  in  this  direc- 
tion was  committed  in  the  Standard  of  June  23  in  a  discus- 
sion of  the  copyright  problem.  A  correspondent  having  raised 
the  question  of  property  in  ideas,  Mr.  George  discusses  it 
elaborately.  Taking  his  stand  upon  the  principle  that  pro- 
ductive labor  is  the  true  basis  of  the  right  of  property,  he  ar- 
gues through  three  columns,  with  all  the  consummate  ability 
for  which  credit  is  given  him  above,  to  the  triumphant  vindi- 
cation of  the  position  that  there  can  rightfully  be  no  such 
thing  as  the  exclusive  ownership  of  an  idea. 

No  man,  he  says,  "can  justly  claim  ownership  in  natural 
laws,  nor  in  any  of  the  relations  which  may  be  perceived  by 
the  human  mind,  nor  in  any  of  the  potentialities  which  nature 
holds  for  it.  .  .  .  Ownership  comes  from  production.  It 
cannot  come  from  discovery.  Discovery  can  give  no  right  of 
ownership.  .  .  .  No  man  can  discover  anything  which,  so 
to  speak,  was  not  put  there  to  be  discovered,  and  which  some 
one  else  might  not  in  time  have  discovered.  If  he  finds  it,  it 
was  not  lost.  It,  or  its  potentiality,  existed  before  he  came. 
It  was  there  to  be  found.  ...  In  the  production  of  any  ma- 
terial thing — a  machine,  for  instance — there  are  two  separable 
parts, — the  abstract  idea  or  principle,  which  may  be  usually 
expressed  by  drawing,  by  writing,  or  by  word  of  mouth  ;  and 
the  concrete  form  of  the  particular  machine  itself,  which 
is  produced  by  bringing  together  in  certain  relations  certain 
quantities  and  qualities  of  matter,  such  as  wood,  steel,  brass, 
brick,  rubber,  cloth,  etc.  There  are  two  modes  in  which  labor 
goes  to  the  making  of  the  machine, — the  one  in  ascertaining 
the  principle  on  which  such  machines  can  be  made  to  work  ; 
the  other  in  obtaining  from  their  natural  reservoirs  and  bring- 
ing together  and  fashioning  into  shape  the  quantities  and 
qualities  of  matter  which  in  their  combination  constitute  the 
concrete  machine.  In  the  first  mode  labor  is  expended  in  dis- 
covery. In  the  second  mode  it  is  expended  in  production. 
The  work  of  discovery  may  be  done  once  for  all,  as  in  the 
♦case  of  the  discovery  in  prehistoric  time  of  the  principle  or 
idea  of  the  wheelbarrow.  But  the  work  of  production  is  re- 
quired afresh  in  the  case  of  each  particular  thing.  No  matter 
how  many  thousand  millions  of  wheelbarrows  have  been  pro- 
duced, it  requires  fresh  labor  of  production  to  make  another 


128 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


one.  .  .  .  The  natural  reward  of  labor  expended  in  discov- 
ery is  in  the  use  that  can  be  made  of  the  discovery  with- 
out interference  with  the  right  of  any  one  else  to  use  it.  But 
to  this  natural  reward  our  patent  laws  endeavor  to  add  an  arti- 
ficial reward.  Although  the  effect  of  giving  to  the  discoverers 
of  useful  devices  or  processes  an  absolute  right  to  their  exclu- 
sive use  would  be  to  burden  all  industry  with  most  grievous 
monopolies,  and  to  greatly  retard,  if  not  put  a  stop  to,  further 
inventions,  yet  the  theory  of  our  patent  laws  is  that  we  can 
stimulate  discoveries  by  giving  a  modified  right  of  ownership 
in  their  use  for  a  term  of  years.  In  this  we  seek  by  special 
laws  to  give  a  special  reward  to  labor  expended  in  discovery, 
which  does  not  belong  to  it  of  natural  right,  and  is  of  the  na- 
ture of  a  bounty.  But  as  for  labor  expended  in  the  second  of 
these  modes, — in  the  production  of  the  machine  by  the  bring- 
ing together  in  certain  relations  of  certain  quantities  and  qual- 
ities of  matter, — we  need  no  special  laws  to  reward  that. 
Absolute  ownership  attaches  to  the  results  of  such  labor,  not 
by  special  law,  but  by  common  law.  And  if  all  human  laws 
were  abolished,  men  would  still  hold  that,  whether  it  were  a 
wheelbarrow  or  a  phonograph,  the  concrete  thing  belonged  to 
the  man  who  produced  it.  And  this,  not  for  a  term  of  years, 
but  in  perpetuity.  It  would  pass  at  his  death  to  his  heirs  or 
to  those  to  whom  he  devised  it." 

The  whole  of  the  preceding  paragraph  is  quoted  from  Mr. 
George's  article.  I  regard  it  as  conclusive,  unanswerable.  It 
proceeds,  it  will  be  noticed,  entirely  by  the  method  of  ergo. 
But  it  is  time  for  the  philosopher  to  disappear.  He  has  done 
his  part  of  the  work,  which  was  the  demolition  of  patents. 
Now  it  is  the  prestidigitator's  turn.  It  remains  for  him  to  jus- 
tify copyright, — that  is,  property,  not  in  the  ideas  set  forth  in 
a  book,  but  in  the  manner  of  expressing  them.  So  juggler 
George  steps  upon  the  scene.  Presto !  he  exclaims  :  "  Over 
and  above  any 'labor  of  discovery'  expended  in  thinking  out 
what  to  say,  is  the  1  labor  of  production '  expended  on  how  to 
say  it."  Observe  how  cunningly  it  is  taken  for  granted  here 
that  the  task  of  giving  literary  expression  to  an  idea  is  labor 
of  production  rather  than  labor  of  discovery.  But  is  it  so  ? 
Right  here  comes  in  the  juggler's  trick  ;  we  will  subject  it  to 
the  philosopher's  test.  The  latter  has  already  been  quoted  : 
"  The  work  of  discovery  may  be  done  once  for  all  .  .  .  but  the 
work  of  production  is  required  afresh  in  the  case  of  each  par* 
ticular  thing."  Can  anything  be  plainer  than  that  he  who  does 
the  work  of  combining  words  for  the  expression  of  an  idea 
saves  just  that  amount  of  labor  to  all  who  thereafter  choose 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND  THE  STATE.  I2Q 


to  use  the  same  words  in  the  same  order  to  express  the  same 
idea,  and  that  this  work,  not  being  required  afresh  in  each 
particular  case,  is  not  work  of  production,  and  that,  not  being 
work  of  production,  it  gives  no  right  of  property  ?  In  quoting 
Mr.  George  above  I  did  not  have  to  expend  any  labor  on  "  how 
to  say  "  what  he  had  already  said.  He  had  saved  me  that 
trouble.  I  simply  had  to  write  and  print  the  words  on  fresh 
sheets  of  paper.  These  sheets  of  paper  belong  to  me,  just  as 
the  sheets  on  which  he  wrote  and  printed  belong  to  him.  But 
the  particular  combination  of  words  belongs  to  neither  of  us. 
He  discovered  it,  it  is  true,  but  that  fact  gives  him  no  right  to 
it.  Why  not  ?  Because,  to  use  his  own  phrases,  this  combi- 
nation of  words  "  existed  potentially  before  he  came";  "it 
was  there  to  be  found  ";  and  if  he  had  not  found  it,  some  one 
else  would  or  might  have  done  so.  The  work  of  copying  or 
printing  books  is  analogous  to  the  production  of  wheelbar- 
rows, but  the  original  work  of  the  author,  whether  in  thinking 
or  composing,  is  analogous  to  the  invention  of  the  wheelbar- 
row ;  and  the  same  argument  that  demolishes  the  right  of  the 
inventor  demolishes  the  right  of  the  author.  The  method  of 
expressing  an  idea  is  itself  an  idea,  and  therefore  not  appro- 
priable. 

The  exposure  is  complete.  But  will  Mr.  George  acknowl- 
edge it  ?  Not  he.  He  will  ignore  it,  as  he  has  ignored  similar 
exposures  in  these  columns  of  his  juggling  with  the  questions 
of  rent,  interest,  and  money.  The  juggler  never  admits  an 
exposure.  It  would  be  ruinous  to  his  business.  He  lies  low 
till  the  excitement  has  subsided,  and  then  "  bobs  up  serenely" 
and  suavely  to  hoodwink  another  crowd  of  greenhorns  with 
the  same  old  tricks.  Such  has  been  juggler  George's  policy 
heretofore  ;  such  it  will  be  hereafter. 


THE  RIGHT  OF  OWNERSHIP. 

[Liberty,  August  2,  1890.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

Will  you  permit  me  to  ask  you  for  the  definition,  from  an  Anarchistic 
standpoint,  of  the  "  Right  of  Ownership  "  ?  What  do  you  mean  to  con- 
vey when  you  say  that  a  certain  thing  belongs  to  a  certain  person  ? 

Before  directing  my  attention  to  the  study  of  the  social  question,  I  had 
a  rather  confused  notion  of  the  meaning  of  this  term.  Ownership  ap- 
peared to  me  a  kind  of  amalgamation  of  wealth  with  the  individual.  This 
conception  could,  of  course,  not  be  sustained  in  an  analysis  of  the  social 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


question  and  the  distribution  of  wealth.  For  some  time  I  could  not 
obtain  a  clear  notion  as  to  what  the  term,  as  popularly  used,  really  signi- 
fies, nor  could  I  find  a  satisfactory  definition  in  any  of  the  books  I  had  at 
command.  The  writers  of  dictionaries  content  themselves  with  quoting 
a  number  of  synonyms  which  throw  no  light  on  the  subject,  and  the  writ- 
ers on  Political  Economy  seem  not  to  bother  themselves  about  such  trifles. 
They  need  no  solid  foundations  for  their  theories  since  they  build  their 
castles  in  the  air.  It  is  said  that  ownership  is  the  "  exclusive  right  of 
possession,"  but  this  explanation  fails  to  meet  the  inquiry  of  him  who  can 
nowhere  find  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  import  of  the  term  "right." 

It  is  clear  that  a  radical  distinction  exists  between  possession  and  own- 
ership, though  these  concepts  are  in  a  measure  related  to  each  other.  It 
seems  reasonable,  therefore,  to  expect  to  find  a  clue  by  examining  the  dis- 
tinction that  exists  between  the  possessor  and  the  owner  of  a  thing.  And 
this  examination  is  not  difficult.  The  owner  of  a  thing  which  for  some 
reason  is  in  the  possession  of  some  one  else  may  demand  its  return,  and, 
if  it  is  not  returned  willingly,  the  aid  of  the  law  can  be  invoked.  This 
leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  right  of  ownership  is  that  relation  be- 
tween a  thing  and  a  person  created  by  the  social  promise  to  guarantee 
possession. 

This  is  the  only  definition  that  appears  satisfactory  to  me.  But  it  im- 
plies the  existence  of  a  social  organization,  however  crude  it  may  be.  It 
implies  that  a  supreme  power  will  enforce  the  command  :  "Thou  shalt 
not  steal."  And  in  the  measure  in  which  this  social  organization  gains 
stability  and  in  which  this  social  power  gains  a  more  universal  suprem- 
acy, the  right  of  ownership  will  assume  a  more  definite  existence. 

Now  I  can  perhaps  repeat  my  question  in  a  way  to  be  better  under- 
stood. Has  Anarchism  a  different  conception  of  the  right  of  ownership, 
or  is  this  right  altogether  repudiated,  or  is  it  assumed  that  out  of  the 
ruins  of  government  another  social  organization,  wielding  a  supreme 
power,  will  arise?    I  can  at  present  see  no  other  alternative. 

Hugo  Bilgram. 

In  discussing  such  a  question  as  this,  it  is  necessary  at  the 
start  to  put  aside,  as  Mr.  Bilgram  doubtless  does  put  aside,  the 
intuitive  idea  of  right,  the  conception  of  right  as  a  standard 
which  we  are  expected  to  observe  from  motives  supposed  to  be 
superior  to  the  consideration  of  our  interests.  When  I  speak 
of  the  "right  of  ownership,"  I  do  not  use  the  word  "  right  "  in 
that  sense  at  all.  In  the  thought  that  I  take  to  be  funda- 
mental in  Mr.  Bilgram's  argument — namely,  that  there  is  no 
right,  from  the  standpoint  of  society,  other  than  social  expedi- 
ency— I  fully  concur.  But  I  am  equally  certain  that  the 
standard  of  social  expediency — that  is  to  say,  the  facts  as  to 
what  really  is  socially  expedient,  and  the  generalizations  from 
those  facts  which  we  may  call  the  laws  of  social  expediency 
— exists  apart  from  the  decree  of  any  social  power  whatever. 
In  accordance  with  this  view,  the  Anarchistic  definition  of  the 
right  of  ownership,  while  closely  related  to  tylr.  Bilgram's,  is 
such  a  modification  of  his  that  it  does  not  carry  the  implica- 
tion which  his  carries  and  which  he  points  out.    From  an  An- 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  1 3 1 

archistic  standpoint,  the  right  of  ownership  is  that  control  of  a 
thing  by  a  person  which  will  receive  either  social  sanction,  or 
else  unanimous  individual  sanction,  when  the  laws  of  social 
expediency  shall  have  been  finally  discovered.  (Of  course  I 
might  go  farther  and  explain  that  Anarchism  considers  the 
greatest  amount  of  liberty  compatible  with  equality  of  liberty 
the  fundamental  law  of  social  expediency,  and  that  nearly  all 
Anarchists  consider  labor  to  be  the  only  basis  of  the  right  of 
ownership  in  harmony  with  that  law  ;  but  this  is  not  essential 
to  the  definition,  or  to  the  refutation  of  Mr.  Bilgram's  point 
against  Anarchism.) 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  Anarchistic  definition  just  given 
does  not  imply  necessarily  the  existence  of  an  organized  or  in- 
stituted social  power  to  enforce  the  right  of  ownership.  It 
contemplates  a  time  when  social  sanction  shall  be  superseded 
by  unanimous  individual  sanction,  thus  rendering  enforcement 
needless.  But  in  such  an  event,  by  Mr.  Bilgram's  definition, 
the  right  of  ownership  would  cease  to  exist.  In  other  words, 
he  seems  to  think  that,  if  all  men  were  to  agree  upon  a  prop- 
erty standard  and  should  voluntarily  observe  it,  property  would 
then  have  no  existence  simply  because  of  the  absence  of  any 
institution  to  protect  it.  Now,  in  the  view  of  the  Anarchists, 
property  would  then  exist  in  its  perfection. 

So  I  would  answer  Mr.  Bilgram's  question,  as  put  in  his 
concluding  paragraph,  as  follows  :  Anarchism  does  not  repu- 
diate the  right  of  ownership,  but  it  has  a  conception  thereof 
sufficiently  different  from  Mr.  Bilgram's  to  include  the  possi- 
bility of  an  end  of  that  social  organization  which  will  arise, 
not  out  of  the  ruins  of  government,  but  out  of  the  transfor- 
mation of  government  into  voluntary  association  for  defence. 


INDIVIDUAL  SOVEREIGNTY  OUR  GOAL. 

[Liberty,  June  7,  1890.] 

In  an  unsigned  article  in  the  Open  Court  (written,  I  suspect 
by  the  editor)  I  find  the  following  : 

When  Anarchists  teach  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual,  we  have  to 
inform  them  that  society  is  an  organized  whole.  The  individual  is  what 
he  is  through  the  community  only,  and  he  must  obey  the  laws  that  govern 
the  growth  of  communal  life.  The  more  voluntary  this  obedience  is,  the 
better  it  is  for  the  community  as  well  as  for  the  individual  himself.  But 
if  the  individual  does  not  voluntarily  obey  the  laws  of  the  community,  so- 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK, 


'32 

ciety  has  a  right  to  enforce  them, 
of  the  individual. 


There  is  no  such  thing  as  sovereignty 


True,  there  is  no  such  thing  ;  and  we  Anarchists  mean  that 
there  shall  be  such  a  thing.  The  criticism  of  the  Open  Court 
writer  is  doubtless  valid  against  those  Anarchists  who  premise 
the  sovereignty  of  the  individual  as  a  natural  right  to  which 
society  has  no  right  to  do  violence.  But  I  cannot  understand 
its  force  at  all  when  offered,  as  it  is,  in  comment  on  the  decla- 
ration of  "  a  leading  Anarchist  of  Chicago  "  that  the  goal  of 
progress  is  individual  sovereignty. 

Anarchism  of  the  "  natural  right  "  type  is  out  of  date.  The 
Anarchism  of  tq-day  affirms  the  right  of  society  to  coerce  the 
individual  and  of  the  individual  to  coerce  society  so  far  as 
either  has  the  requisite  power.  It  is  ready  to  admit  all  that 
the  Open  Court  writer  claims  in  behalf  of  society,  and  then  go 
so  far  beyond  him  that  it  will  take  his  breath  away. 

But,  while  admitting  and  affirming  all  this,  Anarchism  also 
maintains  (and  this  is  its  special  mission)  that  an  increasing 
familiarity  with  sociology  will  convince  both  society  ,  and  the 
individual  that  practical  individual  sovereignty — that  is,  the 
greatest  amount  of  liberty  compatible  with  equality  of  liberty 
— is  the  law  of  social  life,  the  only  condition  upon  which  hu- 
man beings  can  live  in  harmony.  When  this  truth  is  ascer- 
tained and  acted  upon,  then  we  shall  have  individual  sover- 
eignty in  reality, — not  as  a  sacred  natural  right  vindicated, 
but  as  a  social  expedient  agreed  upon,  or  we  will  even  say 
as  a  privilege  conferred,  if  the  Open  Court  writer  prefers  the 
word  as  tending  to  tickle  the  vanity  of  his  god,  Society.  It 
is  in  this  sense  that  Liberty  champions  individual  sovereignty. 
The  motto  on  our  flag  is  not  "  Liberty  a  Natural  Right,"  but 
"  Liberty  the  Mother  of  Order." 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  Open  Court  writer  will  note  this 
before  again  giving  voice  to  the  commonplace  twaddle  about 
Nationalism  and  Anarchism  as  extreme  opposites  both  of 
which  are  right  and  both  wrong.  Anarchism  is  exactly  as  ex- 
treme, exactly  as  right,  and  exactly  as  wrong,  as  that  "ideal 
state  of  societyjj "  which  the  Open  Court  writer  pictures, — "  a 
state  in  which  there  is  as  much  order  as  possible  and  at  the 
same  time  as  much  individual  liberty  as  possible."  In  fact, 
Anarchism  finds  itself  exactly  coextensive  with  the  idea  which 
its  critic  thus  expresses  :  "  Wherever  a  nation  is  developing 
in  the  line  of  progress,  we  shall  always  notice  an  increas- 
ing realization  of  these  two  apparently  antagonistic  principles, 
• — liberty  and  order." 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  1 33 


NEW  ABOLITION  AND  ITS  NINE  DEMANDS. 

[Liberty^  January  25,  1890.] 

The  New  Abolition  Party,  nominally  of  the  United  States, 
but  really  limited  at  present  (pending  the  time  when  it  is  to 
"sweep  the  country  like  a  wave  ")  by  the  walls  of  the  Individ- 
ualist office  at  Denver,  started  out  with  eight  demands  ;  and, 
taken  as  a  whole,  very  good  demands  they  were.  Lately  it 
has  added  a  ninth  ;  just  why,  I  don't  know,  unless  New  Abo- 
lition was  jealous  of  Liberalism  and  bound  to  have  as  many 
demands.  This  explanation  seems  hardly  reasonable,  because 
in  the  case  of  Liberalism  nine  does  not  seem  to  have  proved 
a  magic  number  for  demand  purposes.  However  this  may  be, 
it  is  certain  that  the  ninth  demand  is  a  square  contradiction  of 
some  of  the  most  important  of  its  eight  other  demands,  notably 
the  fifth  and  seventh.  The  ninth  demand  is  for  "  collective 
maintenance  and  control  of  all  public  highways,  waterways, 
railways,  canals,  ditches,  reservoirs,  telegraphs,  telephones, 
ferries,  bridges,  water  works,  gas  works,  parks,  electric  plants, 
etc.,  to  be  operated  in  the  interest  of  the  people."  The  seventh 
demand  is  for  "  immediate  and  unconditional  repeal  of  all 
forms  of  compulsory  taxation."  The  fifth  demand  is  for 
"  immediate  and  unconditional  repeal  of  all  statutes  that  in 
any  way  interfere  with  free  trade  between  individuals  of  the 
same  or  of  different  countries."  Suppose  that  Mr.  Stuart  (the  , 
father  of  New  Abolition)  and  I  live  on  the  same  side  of  a 
river.  I  have  a  boat ;  Mr.  Stuart  has  none.  Mr.  Stuart  comes 
to  me  and  says  :  "  How  much  will  you  charge  to  row  me  across 
the  river?  "  "  Ten  cents,"  I  answer.  "  It  is  a  bargain,  "  says 
Mr.  Stuart,  and  he  steps  into  the  boat.  But  up  steps  at  the 
same  time  the  New  Abolition  party  in  the  shape  of  a  police- 
man (and  it  will  have  to  take  that  shape,  because  in  these  mat- 
ters a  demand  without  a  blue  coat  on  its  back  and  a  club  in 
its  hand  is  an  ineffective  demand)  and  says  to  me  :  "  See  here! 
stop  that  !  Don't  you  know  that  the  New  Abolition  party, 
which  at  the  last  election  '  swept  the  country  like  a  wave,'  in- 
undated your  row-boat  with  the  rest  by  instituting  the  '  collec- 
tive maintenance  and  control  of  all  ferries  '  ?  If  you  attempt 
to  row  Mr.  Stuart  across  the  river,  I  shall  confiscate  your  boat 
in  the  name  of  the  law."  And  then,  addressing  Mr.  Stuart, 
the  policeman  adds  :  "  So  you  may  as  well  get  out  of  that 
boat  and  take  the  ferry-boat  which  the  New  Abolitionists  have 


134 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


already  provided."  "  Officer,  you  are  exceeding  your  duty," 
hotly  replies  Mr.  Stuart  ;  "  I  have  made  a  bargain  with  Mr. 
Tucker,  and,  if  you  were  at  all  qualified  for  your  post,  you 
would  know  that  the  New  Abolition  party  demanded,  in  the 
platform  upon  which  it  '  swept  the  country  like  a  wave,'  the 
4  immediate  and  unconditional  repeal  of  all  statutes  that  in  any 
way  interfere  with  free  trade.'  "  "  Yes,"  I  say,  hastening  to  put 
in  my  oar  (I  use  the  word  metaphorically,  not  referring  at  all 
to  my  boat-oar),  "  and  you  would  know  too  that  this  same  tri- 
umphant party  demanded  the  i  immediate  and  unconditional 
repeal  of  all  forms  of  compulsory  taxation.'  So  I  should  like 
to  see  you  confiscate  my  boat."  "  Oh  !  you're  a  couple  of 
tom-noodles,  way  behind  the  times,"  retorts  the  policeman  ; 
"  the  demands  of  which  you  speak  were  numbered  five  and 
seven  ;  but  the  demand  in  regard  to  ferries  was  a  ninth  and 
later  demand,  which  invalidated  all  previous  demands  that 
conflicted  with  it."  Mr.  Stuart,  being  a  law-abiding  citizen 
and  not  one  of  those  "  Boston  Anarchists  "  who  do  not  be- 
lieve in  the  State,  sorrowfully  steps  from  the  boat  inwardly 
cursing  his  political  offspring,  takes  the  government  ferry-boat 
an  hour  later,  and  gets  across  the  river  just  in  time  to  lose 
the  benefit  of  a  lecture  by  a  "  Boston  Anarchist  "  on  "  The 
Fate  of  the  Individualist  Who  Threw  a  Sop  to  the  Socialistic 
Cerberus." 


COMPULSORY   EDUCATION   NOT  ANARCHISTIC. 

[Liberty,  August  6,  1892.] 

A  public-school  teacher  of  my  acquaintance,  much  inter- 
ested in  Anarchism  and  almost  a  convert  thereto,  finds  him- 
self under  the  necessity  of  considering  the  question  of  com- 
pulsory education  from  a  new  standpoint,  and  is  puzzled  by  it. 
In  his  quandary  he  submits  to  me  the  following  questions  : 

1.  If  a  parent  starves,  tortures,  or  mutilates  his  child,  thus  actively 
aggressing  upon  it  to  its  injury,  is  it  just  for  other  members  of  the  group 
to  interfere  to  prevent  such  aggression  ? 

2.  If  a  parent  neglects  to  provide  food,  shelter,  and  clothing  for  his 
child,  thus  neglecting  the  self-sacrifice  implied  by  the  second  corollary  of 
the  law  of  equal  freedom,  is  it  just  for  other  members  of  the  group  to 
interfere  to  compel  him  so  to  provide? 

3.  If  a  parent  wilfully  aims  to  prevent  his  child  from  reaching  mental 
or  moral,  without  regard  to  physical,  maturity,  is  it  just  for  other  mem- 
bers of  the  group  to  interfere  to  prevent  such  aggression  ? 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE.  1 35 


4.  If  a  parent  neglects  to  provide  opportunity  for  the  child  to  reach  men- 
tal maturity, — assuming  that  mental  maturity  can  be  defined, — is  it  just 
for  other  members  of  the  group  to  interfere  to  compel  him  so  to  provide  ? 

5.  If  it  be  granted  that  a  knowledge  of  reading  and  writing — i.e.,  of 
making  and  interpreting  permanent  signs  of  thought — is  a  necessary  func- 
tion of  maturity,  and  if  a  parent  neglects  and  refuses  to  provide  or  ac- 
cept opportunity  for  his  child  to  learn  to  read  and  write,  is  it  just  for 
other  members  of  the  group  to  interfere  to  compel  the  parent  so  to  pro- 
vide or  accept? 

Before  any  of  these  questions  can  be  answered  with  a  straight 
yes  or  no,  it  must  first  be  ascertained  whether  the  hypothetical 
parent  violates,  by  his  hypothetical  conduct,  the  equal  freedom, 
not  of  his  child,  but  of  other  members  of  society.  Not  of  his 
child,  I  say  ;  why  ?  Because,  the  parent  being  an  independ- 
ent, responsible  individual,  and  the  child  being  a  dependent, 
irresponsible  individual,  it  is  obviously  inequitable  and  virtu- 
ally impossible  that  equal  freedom  should  characterize  the  re- 
lations between  them.  In  this  child,  however,  who  is  one  day 
to  pass  from  the  condition  of  dependence  and  irresponsibility 
to  the  condition  of  independence  and  responsibility,  the  other 
members  of  society  have  an  interest,  and  out  of  this  considera- 
tion the  question  at  once  arises  whether  the  parent  who  impairs 
the  conditions  of  this  child's  development  thereby  violates 
the  equal  freedom  of  those  mature  individuals  whom  this  de- 
velopment unquestionably  affects. 

Now  it  has  been  frequently  pointed  out  in  Liberty,  in  dis- 
cussing the  nature  of  invasion,  that  there  are  certain  acts  which 
all  see  clearly  as  invasive  and  certain  other  acts  which  all  see 
clearly  as  non-invasive,  and  that  these  two  classes  comprise 
vastly  the  larger  part  of  human  conduct,  but  that  they  are 
separated  from  each  other,  not  by  a  hard  and  fast  line,  but  by 
a  strip  of  dark  and  doubtful  territory,  which  shades  off  in 
either  direction  into  the  regions  of  light  and  clearness  by  an 
imperceptible  gradation.  In  this  strip  of  greater  or  less  ob- 
scurity are  included  that  minority  of  human  actions  which 
give  rise  to  most  of  our  political  differences,  and  in  the  thick 
of  its  Cimmerian  centre  we  find  the  conduct  of  parent  toward 
child. 

We  cannot,  then,  clearly  identify  the  maltreatment  of  child 
by  parent  as  either  invasive  or  non-invasive  of  the  liberty  of 
third  parties.  In  such  a  difficulty  we  must  have  recourse  to 
the  policy  presented  by  Anarchism  for  doubtful  cases.  As  I 
cannot  state  this  policy  better  than  I  have  stated  it  already,  I 
quote  my  own  words  from  Liberty,  No.  154  : 

"  Then  liberty  always,  say  the  Anarchists.  No  use  of  force, 
except  against  the  invader  ;  and  in  those  cases  where  it  is  diffi- 


136 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


cult  to  tell  whether  the  alleged  offender  is  an  invader  or  not,  still 
no  use  of  force  except  where  the  necessity  of  immediate  solu- 
tion is  so  imperative  that  we  must  use  it  to  save  ourselves. 
And  in  these  few  cases  where  we  must  use  it,  let  us  do  so  frankly 
and  squarely,  acknowledging  it  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  with- 
out seeking  to  harmonize  our  action  with  any  political  ideal  or 
constructing  any  far-fetched  theory  of  a  State  or  collectivity 
having  prerogatives  and  rights  superior  to  those  of  individuals 
and  aggregations  of  individuals  and  exempted  from  the  opera- 
tion of  the  ethical  principles  which  individuals  are  expected 
to  observe." 

In  other  words,  those  of  us  who  believe  that  liberty  is  the 
great  educator,  the  "  mother  of  order,"  will,  in  case  of  doubt, 
give  the  benefit  to  liberty,  or  non-interference,  unless  it  is 
plain  that  non-interference  will  result  in  certain  and  i?nmediate 
disaster,  if  not  irretrievable,  at  any  rate  too  grievous  to  be 
borne. 

Applying  this  rule  to  the  subject  under  discussion,  it  is  evi- 
dent at  once  that  mental  and  moral  maltreatment  of  children, 
since  its  effects  are  more  or  less  remote,  should  not  be  met 
with  physical  force,  but  that  physical  maltreatment,  if  suffi- 
ciently serious,  may  be  so  met. 

In  specific  answer  to  my  questioner,  I  would  say  that,  if  he 
insists  on  the  form  of  his  questions,  "  Is  it  just  ? "  etc.,  I  cannot 
answer  them  at  all,  because  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  decide 
whether  interference  is  just  unless  I  can  first  decide  whether  or 
no  there  has  already  been  invasion.  But  if,  instead  of  "  Is  it 
just  ? "  he  should  ask  in  each  case,  "  Is  it  Anarchistic  policy? " 
I  would  then  make  reply  as  follows  : 

1.  Yes. 

2.  Yes,  in  sufficiently  serious  cases. 

3.  No. 

4.  No. 
5-  No. 


RELATIONS  BETWEEN  PARENTS  AND  CHILDREN. 

[Liberty,  September  3,  1892.] 

The  wisdom  of  acts  is  measured  by  their  consequences. 

The  individual's  measure  of  consequences  is  proportionate  to  the  circle 
of  his  outlook.  His  horizons  may  lie  so  near  that  he  can  only  measure 
at  short  range.    But,  whether  they  be  near  or  far,  he  can  only  judge 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE   STATE.  I  37 


of  consequences  as  approximately  or  remotely  touching  himself.  His 
judgment  may  err  ;  his  motive  remains  always  the  same,  whether  he  be 
conscious  of  it  or  not. 

That  motive  is  necessarily  egoistic,  since  no  one  deliberately  chooses 
misery  when  happiness  is  open  to  him.  Acts  always  resulting  either  in- 
differently or  in  furtherance  of  happiness  or  increase  of  misery,  one  who 
has  power  to  decide  and  intelligence  to  determine  probable  consequences 
will  certainly  give  preference  to  the  course  which  will  ultimately  advance 
his  own  happiness. 

The  law  of  equal  freedom,  "  Every  one  is  free  to  do  whatsoever  he 
wills,''  appears  to  me  to  be  the  primary  condition  to  happiness.  If  I  fail 
to  add  the  remainder  of  Herbert  Spencer's  celebrated  law  of  equal  free- 
dom, I  shall  only  risk  being  misinterpreted  by  persons  who  cannot  un- 
derstand that  the  opening  affirmation  includes  what  follows,  since,  if  any 
one  did  infringe  upon  the  freedom  of  another,  all  would  not  be  equally 
free. 

Liberty  without  intelligence  rushes  towards  its  own  extinction  contin- 
ually, and  continually  rescues  itself  by  the  knowledge  born  of  its  pain. 

Intelligence  without  liberty  is  a  mere  potentiality,  a  nest-full  of  un- 
hatched  eggs. 

Progress,  therefore,  presupposes  the  union  of  intelligence  and  liberty  : 
Freedom  to  act,  wisdom  to  guide  the  action. 

Equal  freedom  is  the  primary  condition  to  happiness. 

Intelligence  is  the  primary  condition  to  equality  in  freedom. 

Liberty  and  intelligence  acting  and  reacting  upon  each  other  produce 
growth. 

Thus  growth  and  happiness  are  seen  to  be,  if  not  actually  synonymous, 
almost  inseparable  companions. 

Where  equal  freedom  is  rendered  impossible  by  disproportion  in  de- 
grees of  development,  the  hope  of  the  higher  units  lies  in  the  education 
of  the  lower. 

Children,  because  of  their  ignorance,  are  elements  of  inharmony,  hin- 
drances to  equal  freedom.  To  quicken  the  processes  of  their  growth  is 
to  contribute  towards  the  equalization  of  social  forces. 

Then,  liberty  being  essential  to  growth,  they  must  be  left  as  free  as  is 
compatible  with  their  own  safety  and  the  freedom  of  others. 

Just  here  arises  my  difficulty,  which  I  freely  admit.  For  the  enuncia- 
tion of  this  principle  is  the  opening  of  a  Pandora's  box,  from  which  all 
things  fly  out  excepting  adult  judgment. 

Who  shall  decide  upon  the  permissible  degree  of  freedom  ?  Who  shall 
adjust  the  child's  freedom  to  its  safety  so  that  the  two  shall  be  delicately, 
flawlessly  balanced  ? 

The  fecundity  of  these  questions  is  without  limit.  Of  them  are  born 
controversies  that  plague  all  the  unregenerate  alike,  whether  they  be 
philosophers  or  the  humblest  truth-seekers. 

Christians  escape  this  toilsome  investigation.  Their  faith  in  rulership 
simplifies  all  the  relations  of  life.  Their  conduct  need  not  be  consistent 
with  equal  freedom,  since  obedience,  not  liberty,  is  the  basis  of  their 
ideal  society. 

Reluctantly  I  admit  that  during  infancy  and  to  some  extent  in  childhood 
others  must  decide  what  is  for  a  child's  welfare. 

The  human  babe  is  a  pitiably  helpless  and  lamentably  ignorant  ani- 
mal. It  does  not  even  know  when  it  is  hungry,  but  seeks  the  maternal 
breast  as  a  cure-all  for  every  variety  of  physical  uneasiness  ;  therefore 
the  mother  or  nurse  must  inevitably  decide  for  it  even  the  quantity^of 


•38 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


nourishment  it  may  safely  receive  and  the  length  of  time  that  may  inter- 
vene between  tenders  of  supplies.  That  these  judgments  are  far  from 
infallible  is  well  known.  One  mother  of  five  living  children  confessed 
to  me  that  she  had  lost  one  child,  starved  it  in  the  process  of  learning 
that  her  lactation  furnished  a  substance  little  more  nutritious  than  water. 

Grown  older,  the  babe  does  not  know  the  danger  of  touching  a  red- 
hot  stove.  How  should  it  know?  It  is  without  experience.  The 
mother's  impulse  is  to  rescue  the  tender,  white  baby-hand.  Is  she  wise 
in  interposing  this  restraint  ?  I  think  she  is  not.  If  the  child  is  to  have 
bayoneted  sentries  always  on  guard  between  it  and  experience,  it  can 
only  grow  surreptitiously.  I  say  "  bayoneted  "  advisedly,  since  the 
hand  interposed  between  the  baby  and  the  stove  not  infrequently  em- 
phasizes its  power  with  a  blow  which  gives  more  pain  than  the  burn 
would  have  given,  while  its  value  as  experience  may  be  represented 
by  the  minus  sign. 

The  theory  that  it  is  the  duty  of  parents  to  provide  for  the  needs 
of  their  young  children,  and  of  children  to  obey  their  parents,  and, 
in  their  age,  to  support  them,  is  so  generally  accepted  that  I  shall  rouse 
a  storm  of  indignation  by  asserting  that  there  are  no  duties. 

While  a  cursory  glance  at  the  subject  may  seem  to  show  a  denial  of 
equal  freedom  in  the  refusal  of  a  parent  to  support  his  child,  a  more 
careful  study  will  reveal  the  truth  that,  so  long  as  he  does  not  hinder  the 
activities  of  any  one  nor  compel  any  other  person  or  persons  to  under- 
take the  task  which  he  has  relinquished,  he  cannot  be. said  to  violate  the 
law  of  equal  freedom.  Therefore  his  associates  may  not  compel  him  to 
provide  for  his  child,  though  they  may  forcibly  prevent  him  from  aggress- 
ing upon  it.  They  may  prevent  acts  ;  they  may  not  compel  the  perfor- 
mance of  actions. 

It  will,  perhaps,  be  well  to  anticipate  at  this  point  a  question  sure  to 
be  asked  during  the  discussion. 

Is  it  not  aggression  on  the  part  of  parents  to  usher  into  existence  a 
child  for  which  they  are  either  unable  or  unwilling  to  provide? 

Much  may  be  said  in  reply. 

First  :  In  any  association  differences  of  opinion  would  arise  as  to 
whether  it  was  aggression  or  not  ;  these  differences  would  imply  doubt, 
and  the  doubt  would  make  forcible  prevention,  even  if  practicable,  un- 
justifiable. 

Second  :  This  doubt  would  be  strengthened  by  consideration  of  the  fact 
Jhat  no  one  could  be  able  to  predict  with  certainty  nine  months  previous 
to  the  birth  of  a  child  that  at  the  time  of  its  birth  its  parents  would  be  un- 
able to  provide  sustenance  for  it. 

Third  :  It  would  be  further  strengthened  by  the  knowledge  that  death 
is  always  open  to  those  who  find  life  intolerable,  and,  so  long  as  persons 
seek  to  prolong  existence,  they  cannot  properly  complain  of  those  who 
thrust  it  upon  them.  A  young  babe  does  not  question  whether  the  milk 
it  feeds  upon  flows  from  its  mother's  breast  or  from  the  udder  of  a  cow, 
and  should  it,  with  dawning  intelligence,  feel  disturbed  in  mind  or  dis- 
tressed in  body  by  reason  of  its  relations  towards  its  environments,  it  will, 
by  then,  have  learned  the  art  of  dying. 

And  now,  having  opened  a  gulf  which  swallows  up  duty,  shall  I  be  able 
to  allay  the  consternation  of  those  who  have  substituted  the  worship  of 
this  for  their  repudiated  worship  of  another  unsubstantial  God  ? 

It  has  seemed  to  me  that,  generally  speaking,  people's  love  for  their 
children  is  in  inverse  proportion  to  their  love  of  God  and  duty.  However 
this  may  be, — and  I  will  admit  that,  although  parallel  and  pertinent,  it  is 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE.  1 39 


not  directly  in  the  line  of  inquiry  I  am  pursuing. — there  is  still  left  to  us 
the  certainty  that  increasing  intelligence  will  more  and  more  incline  indi- 
viduals to  face  the  consequences  of  their  own  acts  ;  not  for  duty's  sake, 
but  in  order  to  help  establish  and  preserve  that  social  harmony  which  will 
be  necessary  to  their  happiness. 

Even  in  the  present  semi-barbarous  condition  of  parental  relations  it  is 
exceptional,  unusual,  for  parents  to  abandon  their  children,  and  the  two 
distinct  incentives  to  such  abandonment  will  be  removed  by  social  evolu- 
tion, leaving  the  discussion  of  the  obligation  of  parents  to  care  for  their 
children  purely  abstract  and  rather  unprofitable,  since  no  one  will  refuse 
to  do  so. 

The  two  motives  to  which  I  refer  are  poverty  and  fear  of  social  oblo- 
quy. Married  parents  sometimes  desert  their  children  because  they  lack 
abundant  means  of  subsistence  ;  unmarried  parents  occasionally  not  only 
desert  their  offspring,  but  deny  them,  in  order  to  escape  the  malice  of  the 
unintelligent  who  believe  that  vice  is  susceptible  of  transmutation  into 
virtue  by  the  blessing  of  a  priest,  and  virtue  into  vice  by  the  absence  of 
the  miracle-working  words. 

Recognition  of  the  law  of  equal  freedom  would  nearly  remove  the  first, 
render  the  second  more  endurable,  and  finally  obliterate  both,  leaving 
parents  without  motive  for  the  abandonment  of  offspring. 

That  parents  usually  find  happiness  in  provision  for  the  welfare  of  their 
young  is  well  known.  Even  the  habits  of  the  lower  animals  afford  evi- 
dence sufficient  to  establish  this  position,  and,  for  convenience,  postulating 
it  as  a  principle,  I  shall  proceed  to  examine  how  far  parents  defeat  their 
own  aim  by  unintelligent  pursuit  of  it. 

Food  is  the  first,  because  the  indispensable,  requisite  to  welfare,  but  un- 
intelligent and  indiscriminate  feeding  results  in  thousands  of  deaths  annu- 
ally and  sows  seeds  of  chronic  invalidism  in  millions  of  young  stomachs. 

Clothing  also  is  considered  indispensable,  and  is  so  in  rigorous  climates, 
but  the  primary  object  of  covering  the  body,  which  is  surely  to  make  it 
comfortable,  is  usually  almost  wholly  forgotten  in  the  effort  to  conform  to 
accepted  ideals  of  beauty, — ideals  often  involving  peculiar  departures  from 
natural  forms. 

Shelter  is  a  necessity  which  is  often  accompanied  by  such  over-zealous 
inhospitality  to  fresh  air  as  places  choice  between  in-door  and  out-door 
life  in  uncertain  balance. 

But  the  sturdiest  pursuits  and  the  dreariest  defeats  and  failures  are  found 
in  educational  endeavors. 

The  child  comes  into  an  unknown  world.  His  blinking  eyes  cannot 
decide  which  is  nearer,  the  lighted  taper  on  the  table  or  the  moon  seen 
through  the  window.  He  does  not  know  that  a  Riverside  orange  is  larger 
than  the  palm  of  his  tiny  hand  until  he  has  learned  the  truth  by  repeated 
efforts  to  grasp  it.  He  has  all  things  to  learn:  ideas  of  dimension,  weight, 
heat,  moisture,  density,  resistance,  gravitation, — all  things  in  their  inter- 
relations and  their  relations  to  himself.  And  what  bungling  assistance  he 
receives  in  the  bewildering  path  through  this  tangle  of  truth  ! 

He  learns  that  God  sends  the  rain,  the  hail,  and  the  snow  down  from 
the  sky  ;  that  his  little  sister  was  brought  from  heaven  by  an  angel  and 
deposited  in  a  doctor's  pill-bags.  The  tie  of  relationship  between  her  and 
himself  remains  a  mystery.  Anthropomorphism  lurks  everywhere.  The 
unseen  hand  moves  all  things.  He  asks  many  questions  which  his  teachers 
cannot  answer,  and,  unwilling  to  confess  their  ignorance,  they  constantly 
reiterate  :  "  God  did  it,"  as  if  that  were  an  answer. 


140 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


Turning  from  unsuccessful  inquiries  concerning  natural  phenomena, 
perhaps  the  child  perceives,  in  a  dim  way,  his  relations  with  the  State,  and, 
as  God  posed  before  him  in  the  realm  of  philosophy  and  science,  so  do  all 
replies  to  his  questionings  now  end  in  omnipotent  government. 

' '  Why  does  no  one  prevent  the  man  with  a  star  from  clubbing  the  other 
man  ?  " 

"  Because  he  is  a  policeman." 

"  Who  said  that  a  policeman  might  strike  people?" 

"The  government." 

"  What  is  the  government  ?  " 

"  The  government  is  my  son,  you  will  learn  when  you  are  older." 

"  Who  pays  the  policeman  for  clubbing  the  other  man  ?  " 
"The  government." 

"Where  does  the  government  get  the  money?" 
"  You  will  learn  when  you  are  older." 

Usually  at  the  age  of  six  years,  or  even  earlier,  a  child's  education  is 
practically  abandoned  by  its  inefficient  parents  and  intrusted  to  the  church 
and  the  State. 

The  State  uses  money  robbed  from  the  parents  to  perpetuate  its  powers 
of  robbery  by  instructing  their  children  in  its  own  interest. 

The  church,  also,  uses  its  power  to  perpetuate  its  power.  And  to  these 
twin  leeches,  as  "Ouida"  has  aptly  designated  them,  to  these  self-inter- 
ested robbers  and  murderers,  are  the  tender  minds  of  babies  entrusted 
for  education. 

Herbert  Spencer  has  shown  that  the  status  of  women  and  children  im- 
proves in  proportion  to  the  decline  of  militarism  and  the  advance  of  in- 
dustrialism. 

The  military  spirit  is  encouraged  in  multifold  ways  by  both  church  and 
State,  and  little  children  and  women,  in  their  pitiable  ignorance,  assist  in 
weaving  nets  that  shall  trip  their  own  unwary  feet  and  those  of  other 
women  and  children  that  follow  them. 

A  spirit  of  subordination  is  inculcated  by  both  church  and  State,  which 
contemplate  without  rebuke  the  brutalities  of  authority,  excepting  in 
some  cases  of  extraordinary  cruelty,  and  teach  the  helpless  victims  that 
it  is  their  duty  to  submit. 

The  most  commonplace  tenets  of  the  sepowers  would  seem  absurd 
and  outrageous  if  expounded  to  an  unprepared  adult  mind  and  stripped 
of  all  those  devices  of  language  by  which  the  various  promptings  of 
shame,  good  nature,  ignorance,  or  deceit  impel  us  to  soften  the  truth. 

Say  to  such  an  one  : 

"  Murder  by  the  State  is  laudable  ;  murder  by  an  individual  is  criminal. 

"  Robbery  by  the  State  is  permissible  ;  robbery  by  an  individual  is  a 
serious  offence  against  the  person  robbed  and  also  against  public  wel- 
fare. 

"Assault  of  the  parent  upon  his  child  is  justifiable;  assault  of  the 
child  upon  the  parent  is  intolerable." 

He  would  not  look  upon  you  with  the  simple  confidence  of  a  puzzled 
child,  attributing  the  apparent  incompatibilities  to  the  feebleness  of  his 
own  understanding. 

But  to  the  child  these  bewildering  social  sophistries,  flowing  into  his 
mind  from  sources  that  appeal  to  his  trust,  and  presented  with  ambigui- 
ties of  language  that  serve  to  increase  its  difficulties,  must  appear  hope- 
less labyrinths  of  mystery. 

Thus  at  every  step  from  infancy  to  adult  life  the  progress  of  the  child 
is  checked  by  the  incapacity  of  those  who  desire  to  advance  its  welfare. 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  141 


Inherited  tendencies  and  the  training  which  they  themselves  received 
incline  parents  to  become  inexorable  masters  and  to  commend  most  the 
conduct  of  that  child  which  is  easiest  enslaved. 

Parents  beat  their  children,  elder  children  beat  younger  brothers  and 
sisters,  and  the  wee  ones  avenge  their  wrongs  vicariously  by  beating  their 
dolls  or  their  wooden  horses. 

Through  individual  revolts  against  the  general  barbarity,  revolts  of 
increasing  frequency  and  power,  humanity  gradually  evolves  above  actual 
application  of  its  savage  principles.  But  these  revolts  against  savagery, 
when  led  by  emotion,  often  result  nearly  as  disastrously  as  savagery 
itself. 

Reason  must  be  the  basis  of  all  enduring  social  growth. 

When  reason  shall  have  learned  to  rebel  against  inequalities  in  liber- 
ties, and  when  this  mental  rebellion  shall  have  become  quite  general, 
then  will  people  have  passed  beyond  danger  of  relapse  into  savagery. 

Then  parent  and  child  shall  not  be  master  and  slave,  a  relation  dis- 
tasteful to  reasoning  people,  but  they  shall  be  friend  and  friend.  There 
will  be  no  restraints  imposed  except  such  as  are  absolutely  necessary, 
and  these  will  not  take  the  form  of  blows  and  will  be  removed  as  early  as 
possible. 

Examples  of  such  restraints  as  I  mean  are  : 

Detention  from  the  brink  of  a  precipice  or  an  open  well  or  the  track  of 
a  coming  locomotive,  or  of  one  child  from  striking  another. 

Parents  who  recognize  the  fundamental  principle  of  happiness  through 
freedom  and  intelligence  will,  generally  speaking,  achieve  results  pro- 
portionate to  the  degree  of  their  success  in  harmonizing  their  lives  with 
this  principle.  The  greater  their  intelligence  the  higher  perfection  will 
they  reach  in  the  interpretation  and  application  of  the  law  of  equal  free- 
dom, and  in  preparing  their  children  to  attain  harmonious  relations  with 
their  environment. 

SUPPLEMENTARY. 
How  to  make  liars  of  children  : 

I  have  said  that  infants  have  all  things  to  learn.  It  would  seem,  and 
would  be,  superfluous  to  repeat  a  fact  so  well  known,  were  it  not  true 
that  most  people  credit  little  children  with  so  much  more  knowledge  than 
they  could  possibly  have  acquired  in  the  given  time.  I  have  heard,  not 
once  but  many  times,  mothers  accuse  young  children  of  falsehood  when 
I  fully  believed  that  the  apparent  misstatements  were  due  in  part  to  the 
little  ones'  weak  grasp  on  the  language  which  they  attempted  to  speak, 
and  partly  to  misinterpretation  of  facts.  Even  grown-up  people  do  not 
look  upon  the  simplest  incident  from  exactly  the  same  point  of  view  ;  yet 
they  expect  from  mere  babes  perfection  of  accuracy,  and,  being  disap- 
pointed in  this  unreasonable  expectation,  accuse  them  of  falsehood,  and 
not  infrequently  worry  them  into  admitting  faults  which  have,  in  reality, 
no  meaning  to  their  dim  understandings.  But  after  lying  has  come  to 
have  meaning,  the  little  mind  becomes  indifferent  to  truthfulness,  finding 
that  punishment  falls  the  same,  whether  it  inspire  truth  or  falsehood. 

Thus  the  child  is  made  a  liar  by  its  parents'  ignorant  endeavor  to  teach 
it  regard  for  the  truth. 

But  worse  mistakes  are  made  by  those  parents  whose  daily  conversa- 
tion with  their  children  furnishes  examples  of  untruthfulness.  Who  has 
not  been  frightened  into  obedience  by  tales  of  a  bogie-man,  a  Chinaman, 
a  black  man,  or  a  Santa  Claus  with  his  rattan, — stories  which  do  triple 
injury  by  fostering  cowardice,  class  hatred,  and  lying  ? 


142 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


To  teach  a  child  to  steal  : 

Carefully  lock  away  from  him  'all  fruits  and  sweets.  Allow  him  no 
money  for  personal  expenses.  If  you  miss  anything,  accuse  him  of 
having  taken  it.  If  you  send  him  out  to  make  purchases,  count  the 
change  with  suspicious  care  when  he  returns.  If  he  has  lost  a  few  pen- 
nies, accuse  him  of  having  spent  them  for  candy.  If  you  never  buy 
candy  for  him,  this  will  teach  him  a  means  of  supplying  himself,  and 
probably  your  next  accusation  will  be  true. 

Strike  children  and  they  learn  to  strike  each  other  ;  scold  them  and 
they  learn  to  quarrel  ;  give  them  drums  and  flags  and  uniforms  and  toy 
guns  and  they  desire  to  become  professional  murderers.  Open  their 
letters,  listen  to  their  conversations  with  their  young  friends,  pry  into 
their  little  secrets,  invade  their  private  rooms  without  knocking,  and  you 
make  them  meddlers  and  disagreeable  companions. 

I  have  said  that  it  is  not  the  duty  of  children  to  obey  their  parents  or 
to  care  for  them  in  old  age. 

The  following  facts  bear  on  this  position  : 

The  life  of  a  child  is  usually  merely  incident  to  the  pleasure  of  its 
parents,  and  is  often  an  accident  deeply  deplored  by  both.  Even  when 
conception  is  desired,  it  is  still  for  the  pleasure  of  the  parents.  If  it  were 
possible,  which  it  is  not,  to  conceive  of  a  life  given  solely  for  its  own 
happiness,  its  parents  taking  no  pleasure  either  in  the  sexual  relation  or 
in  the  hope  of  offspring,  the  child  could  incur  no  responsibility  by  the 
opinions  or  the  acts  of  its  parents. 

After  its  birth  the  child  does  not  say  : 

"Give  me  food,  clothes,  and  shelter  now  in  exchange  for  food,  clothes, 
and  shelter  which  I  will  give  you  in  your  old  age,"  and,  could  he  make 
such  a  contract,  it  would  be  void.  A  man  cannot  be  bound  by  promises 
he  made  during  his  infancy. 

The  question  of  obedience  I  pass,  since  highly-evolved  parents  cannot 
be  obeyed,  because  they  will  not  command. 

On  careful  thought  the  removal  of  the  idea  of  duty  will  be  seen  to  be 
less  startling  than  it  must  at  first  appear  to  those  who  have  accepted  with- 
out question  the  dogmas  of  authority.  Mr.  Cowell  has  called  my  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  love  which  most  people  have  for  their  parents  or 
foster-parents  is  evidence  that  few  wholly  lack  lovable  attributes.  During 
the  long  years  of  familiar  companionship  between  parents  and  child  ties 
are  usually  formed  which  cannot  be  broken  while  life  lasts,  not  ties  of 
duty  but  of  affection  ;  these  render  mutual  helpfulness  a  source  of  pleas- 
ure. If  they  be  lacking,  a  self-respecting  parent  would  choose  the  shelter 
of  an  almshouse  rather  than  the  grudging  charity  bestowed  by  his  child 
under  the  spur  of  a  belief  in  duty. 

Clara  Dixon  Davidson. 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND  THE  STATE.  1 43 


COMPULSORY  EDUCATION  AND  ANARCHISM. 

[Liberty,  September  3,  1892.] 
To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  :  , 

While  reading  your  lucid  editorial  on  the  above  topic,  some  thoughts 
occurred  to  me  which  I  venture  to  offer  in  the  hope  that  they  may  serve 
to  supplement  what  you  have  said  in  dealing  with  your  scholastic  friend's 
well-put  queries. 

I  cannot  help  thinking  that  he  had  in  mind  a  very  un-Anarchistic  con- 
dition of  things  when  he  formulated  the  questions.  Why  is  compulsory 
education  in  vogue  to-day?  For  whom  is  it  intended?  If  society  had 
been  composed  of  well-to-do  people  having  all  the  comforts,  advantages, 
and  opportunities  of  civilization  that  some  only  enjoy  at  present,  would 
the  idea  of  statutory  compulsion  in  the  bringing-up  and  education  of  chil- 
dren ever  have  been  thought  of,  much  less  put  into  force  ?  Are  such  legal 
regulations  applied,  practically,  to  the  classes  superior  in  fortune  to  the 
majority,  in  whose  interest  (?)  the  regulations  are  supposed  to  be  made? 

I  find  myself  dropping  into  the  interrogative  style,  like  our  friendly- 
inquirer,  and  while  in  it  would  like  to  ask  him,  though  not  wishing  to 
usurp  the  functions  of  a  father  confessor,  if  he  had  not  in  view,  perhaps 
vaguely  and  even  unconsciously,  when  thinking  over  the  matter  that  he 
embodied  in  the  five  points,  a  typical  wage  slave,  underpaid,  uneducated, 
unrefined,  the  victim  of  compulsory  restrictions  and  stultifying  law-made 
conditions,  a  man  or  woman  without  intelligence,  whose  narrow  mental 
scope  and  abnormal  moral  nature  are  the  result  of  circumstances  pro- 
duced by  invasive  tyranny, — in  short,  parents  whose  unfilial  instincts 
and  unsocial  acts  are  the  direct  outcome  of  ages  of  legal  oppression.  To 
such  persons  only  could  the  assumptions  underlying  the  questions  apply. 

If  our  friend  apprehends  clearly  the  drift  of  the  queries  above  and 
consequently  answers  them  to  our  mutual  satisfaction,  he  will  then,  I 
imagine,  discard  his  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  questions  as  unnecessary  and 
inapplicable  to  a  truly  Anarchist  condition  of  society.  It  seems  to  me 
unwise  to  attempt  to  apply  Anarchistic  principles  to  one  case  of  social 
relations,  itself  arising  out  of  other  relations,  without  at  the  same  time 
tracing  that  case  to  its  sources  and  there  defining  the  bearings  of  the 
whole  in  relation  to  perfect  liberty, — Anarchy.  I  would  not  turn  aside 
to  condemn  some  kinds  of  compulsory  interference  which  are  really  at- 
tempts at  ameliorating  the  conditions  that  more  inimical  invasion  has 
brought  about,  but  would  rather  strike  straight  at  the  previous  and  more 
vital  violations  of  the  law  of  equal  freedom.  Hence  I  agree  with  the 
editor  when  he  answers  No,  No,  No,  to  the  last  three  problems,  not  only 
on  the  grounds  he  lays  down,  but  also  because  I  believe  that  the  eco- 
nomic emancipation  which  would  result  from  the  adoption  of  Anarchy 
as  a  basic  method  in  Society  would  speedily  solve  all  such  problems  by 
relegating  them  to  the  Museum  of  Curiosities  of  the  Ante-Revolution. 

On  grounds  of  sentiment,  of  sympathy,  feeling,  and  humanity,  which 
would  probably  be  stronger  and  more  generous  under  equal  liberty  than 
now,  I  would  not  hesitate  to  act  in  the  circumstances  supposed  in  the 
first  and  second  questions,  though  such  action  would  certainly  not  be  dic- 
tated by  the  mere  theory  of  Anarchism,  but  would  be  no  more  a  violation 
of  it  than  would  a  refusal  in  such  cases  to  interfere. 


144 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


The  undoubted  tendency  of  an  adoption  of  Anarchy  would  be,  how- 
ever, to  minimize  the  possibility  of  unsocial  conduct  of  the  character 
under  discussion,  if  not  to  abolish  it  altogether.     Fraternally  yours, 

William  Bailie. 


CHILDREN  UNDER  ANARCHY. 

[Liberty,  September  3,  1892.] 

Nearly  the  whole  of  this  issue  of  Liberty  is  devoted  to  the 
important  question  of  the  status  of  the  child  under  Anarchy. 
The  long  article  by  Clara  Dixon  Davidson  has  been  in  my 
desk,  unopened,  for  several  months.  On  examining  it  the 
other  day,  I  was  surprised  and  delighted  to  find  that  a  woman 
had  written  such  a  bold,  unprejudiced,  unsentimental,  and 
altogether  rational  essay  on  a  subject  which  women  are  espe- 
cially prone  to  treat  emotionally.  I  am  even  shamed  a  little 
by  the  unhesitating  way  in  which  she  eliminates  from  the 
problem  the  fancied  right  of  the  child  to  life.  My  own  diffi- 
culties, I  fear,  have  been  largely  due  to  a  lingering  trace  of  this 
superstition.  The  fact  is  that  the  child,  like  the  adult,  has  no 
right  to  life  at  all.  Under  equal  freedom,  as  it  develops  in- 
dividuality and  independence,  it  is  entitled  to  immunity  from 
assault  or  invasion,  and  that  is  all.  If  the  parent  neglects  to 
support  it,  he  does  not  thereby  oblige  any  one  else  to  support 
it.  If  others  give  it  support,  they  do  so  voluntarily,  as  they 
might  give  support  to  a  neglected  animal  ;  there  is  no  more 
obligation  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other. 

I  also  welcome  as  important  Comrade  Bailie's  contribution 
to  the  discussion.  In  one  view  the  question  of  the  status  of 
the  child  under  Anarchy  is  a  trivial  one, — trivial  because  the 
bugbears  that  surround  it  are  hypothetical  monsters,  and  be- 
cause such  ugly  realities  as  do  actually  confront  it  are  put  to 
rout  by  the  new  social  conditions  which  Anarchy  induces. 
Even  at  present  comparatively  few  parents  are  disposed  to 
abuse  or  neglect  their  children,  and  in  the  absence  of  poverty 
and  false  notions  of  virtue  their  number  will  be  infinitesimal 
and  may  be  safely  neglected.  The  question  is  one  that  van- 
ishes as  we  approach  it. 

The  chief  value  of  its  discussion  is  found  in  the  light  which 
it  throws  on  the  matter  of  equal  freedom.  Hence  I  am  glad 
that  it  was  brought  forward  by  my  friend  the  school-teacher, 
whose  questions  I  answered  in  No.  232,  and  who  now  rejoins 
with  the  following  letter  ; 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,  AND  THE  STATE.  1 45 


To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

I  gather  from  your  editorial  that  it  is  Anarchistic  policy  for  neighbors 
to  interfere  if  a  parent  is  about  to  chisel  off  the  third  finger  of  its  child's 
left  hand,  even  if  he  proposes  to  secure  a  well-healed  stump.  I  think  I 
know  you  well  enough  to  say  that  it  is  not  Anarchistic  policy  for  neigh- 
bors to  interfere  if  the  parent,  otherwise  sane,  proposes  to  treat  his  own 
finger  so.  Now,  where  is  the  criterion  of  these  two  cases  ?  Why  should 
the  child's  physical  integrity  be  of  more  importance  to  neighbors  than  the 
father's  ?  Do  we  not  recognize  some  substitute  for  or  remnant  of  the  law 
of  equal  freedom,  restraining  the  parent's  absolute  control  over  the  mind, 
body,  and  life  of  his  child  ?  "  Not  for  the  child's  sake,"  primarily,  be- 
cause all  sane  altruism  is  rooted  in  egoism  :  but  it  is  Anarchistic  policy  to 
recognize  and  defend  the  child's  right  to  physical  integrity,  in  extreme 
cases. 

Again,  the  reason  why  we  draw  the  line  of  Anarchistic  policy  at  inter- 
ference with  any  but  physical  maltreatment  is,  if  I  am  correct,  that  non- 
interference will  result  in  disaster,  too  grievous  to  be  borne,  which  will  be 
an  invasion  of  the  equal  freedom  of  adult  neighbors, — all  this  omy  in  the 
case  of  physical  maltreatment.  On  this  ground  is  laid  down  the  general 
rule  that  mental  and  moral  maltreatment  of  children  by  parents  should  not 
be  met  by  neighbors  with  physical  force.  It  seems  obvious  to  me  that 
this  rule  cannot  be  thus  justified  in  considering  the  case  of  physical  mal- 
treatment instanced  above,  and  the  following  case  of  mental-and-moral 
maltreatment :  A  parent,  with  the  intention  of  ruining  his  child's  future, 
surrounds  it  with  temptations  to  debauchery  such  as  will  assuredly  render 
it  imbecile,  if  it  survives  to  the  normal  age  of  maturity. — This  seems  to 
me  more  harmful  to  adult  neighbors  than  even  such  mutilation  as  an  eye 
put  out. 

To  put  my  thesis  most  directly,  I  claim  (I)  to  state  the  law  of  equal 
freedom  as  follows  : 

Every  individual  has  a  right  to  and  must  expect  the  results  of  his  own 
nature. 

Cor.  1.  Every  individual  must  refrain  from  invading  his  neighbor's  rights. 

Cor.  2.  Every  child  has  a  right  to  such  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  its  parent 
as  will  enable  it  to  arrive  at  maturity. 

And  I  claim  (II)  that  it  is  Anarchistic  policy  to  use  physical  force  to 
prevent  transgressions  of  either  corollary  of  this  law,  where  such  trans- 
gressions are  clear  and  unmistakable.  The  Egoistic  basis  of  enforcing 
Cor.  2  is,  as  your  editorial  implies,  the  fact  that  its  violation  will  result  in 
shouldering  off  upon  others  some  unwelcome  consequence  of  the  parents' 
(propagative)  conduct. 

It  is  not  always  possible  to  apply  the  theoretical  deductions  of  science; 
but  that  need  not  deter  her  devotees  from  trying  to  state  and  prove,  as 
completely  as  possible,  the  results  of  science.  Here  we  are,  confronted 
by  the  "  Cimmerian  darkness"  of  one  of  the  most  important  problems  in 
social  ethics.  If  the  statement  of  Cor.  2  above  is  not  accurate,  I  ask  you, 
as  my  first  instructor  in  this  subject,  to  tell  me  where  it  is  inaccurate,  and 
why  :  if  it  is  accurate,  it  furnishes  a  basis  for  the  relation  between  Family 
and  Society  as  firm  and  clear  as  the  Law  of  Equal  Freedom  does  for  Soci- 
ety alone.  And  we  can  set  ourselves  calmly  to  write  down  the  particular 
equations  that  represent  the  several  phases  of  child-guardianship. 

G.  w.  E. 

My  friend  misapprehends  me.  When  the  interference  of 
third  parties  is  justifiable,  it  is  not  so  because  of  the  superior 


146 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


importance  of  the  child's  physical  integrity  as  compared  with 
that  of  the  parent  who  mutilates  himself,  but  because  the  child 
is  potentially  an  individual  sovereign.  The  man  who  muti- 
lates himself  does  not  impair  equal  freedom  in  the  slightest, 
but  the  parent  who  mutilates  his  child  assaults  a  being  which, 
though  still  limited  in  its  freedom  by  its  dependence,  is  daily 
growing  into  an  independence  which  will  establish  its  freedom 
on  an  equality  with  that  of  others.  In  this  doubtful  stage  the 
advisability  of  interference  is  to  be  decided  by  necessity,  since, 
so  far  as  we  can  see  at  present,  it  cannot  be  decided  by  prin- 
ciple. It  is  necessary  to  stop  the  parent  from  cutting  off  his 
child's  finger,  because  the  danger  is  immediate  and  the  evil 
certain  and  irremediable.  It  is  not  necessary  to  prescribe  the 
conditions  of  virtue  with  which  a  parent  shall  surround  his 
child,  because  the  danger  is  remote  (it  being  possible  perhaps 
in  time  to  induce  the  parent  to  change  his  course),  the  evil  is 
uncertain  (the  child  often  proving  sufficiently  strong  in  char- 
acter to  rise  above  its  conditions),  and  the  results  are  not 
necessarily  permanent  (as  later  conditions  may  largely,  if  not 
entirely,  counteract  them).  In  the  former  case,  physical  force 
must  be  met  with  physical  force.  In  the  latter  case,  it  is  safer 
and  better  to  meet  moral  (or  immoral)  force  with  moral  force. 
I  am  afraid  that  my  friend  is  not  yet  a  sufficiently  good  An- 
archist to  appreciate  the  full  significance  of  Proudhon's  decla- 
ration that  Liberty  is  the  Mother  of  Order,  and  the  importance 
of  securing  education  through  liberty  wherever  practicable 
instead  of  through  compulsion. 

I  do  not  think  that  my  friend's  formulas  are  capable  of  sci- 
entific treatment.  When  he  tells  me  that  "  every  individual 
has  a  right  to  and  must  expect  the  results  of  his  own  nature," 
he  lays  down  a  proposition  too  vague  for  the  purposes  of  sci- 
ence. I  do  not  know  what  the  words  mean,  and  in  any  case  1 
deny  the  alleged  right.  An  individual  has  a  right  to  the  results 
of  his  own  nature  if  he  can  get  them;  otherwise,  not.  Apart 
from  this  right  of  might,  no  individual  has  a  right  to  anything, 
except  as  he  creates  his  right  by  contract  with  his  neighbor. 


NOT  A  DECREE,  BUT  A  PROPHECY. 

[Liberty,  April  28,  1888.] 

Have  I  made  a  mistake  in  my  Anarchism,  or  has  the  editor  of  Liberty 
himself  tripped  ?    At  any  rate,  I  must  challenge  the  Anarchism  of  one 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  147 


sentence  in  his  otherwise  masterful  paper  upon  "State  Socialism  and 
Anarchism."  If  I  am  wrong,  I  stand  open  to  conviction.  It  is  this: 
"  They  [Anarchists]  look  forward  to  a  time  .  .  .  when  the  children  born 
of  these  relations  shall  belong  exclusively  to  the  mothers  until  old  enough 
to  belong  to  themselves." 

Now,  that  looks  to  me  like  an  authoritarian  statement  that  is  in  oppo- 
sition to  theoretical  Anarchy,  and  also  to  nature.  What  is  the  matter 
with  leaving  the  question  of  the  control  of  those  children  to  their  two 
parents,  to  be  settled  between  them, — allowing  them  to  decide  whether 
both,  or  only  one,  and  which  one,  shall  have  control? 

I  may  be  wrong,  but  it  seems  to  me  extremely  un-Anarchistic  to  thus 
bring  up  an  extraneous,  authoritarian,  moral  obligation,  and  use  it  to 
stifle  an  instinct  which  nature  is  doing  her  best  to  develop. 

I  would  like  to  know  whether  the  editor  of  Liberty  momentarily  forgot 
his  creed  that  we  must  follow  our  natural  desires,  or  if  I  have  misunder- 
stood his  statement,  or  misapplied  my  own  Anarchy. 

Paternal  love  of  offspring  is,  with  a  few  exceptions,  a  comparatively 
late  development  in  the  evolution  of  the  animal  world,  so  late  that  there 
are  tribes  of  the  order  of  man,  and  individuals  even  among  civilized  na- 
tions, in  whom  it  is  not  found.  But  the  fact  that  it  is  a  late  development 
shows  that  it  is  going  to  develop  still  more.  And  under  the  eased  eco- 
nomical conditions  which  Anarchy  hopes  to  bring  about,  it  would  burst 
forth  with  still  greater  power.  Is  it  wise  to  attempt  to  stifle  that  feeling 
— as  it  would  be  stifled — by  the  sweeping  statement  that  its  object  should 
belong  to  some  one  else  ?  Maternal  love  of  offspring  beautifies  the 
woman's  character,  broadens  and  enriches  her  intellect.  And  as  far  as  I 
have  observed,  paternal  feeling,  if  it  is  listened  to,  indulged,  and  devel- 
oped, has  an  equally  good,  though  not  just  the  same,  effect  upon  the 
man's  mind.  Should  he  be  deprived  of  all  this  good  by  having  swept  out 
of  his  hands  all  care  for  his  children,  and  out  of  his  heart  all  feeling  that 
they  are  his,  by  being  made  to  feel  that  they  "belong  exclusively  to  the 
mother"?  It  seems  to  me  much  more  reasonable,  much  more  natural, 
and  very  much  more  Anarchistic,  to  say  that  the  child  of  Anarchistic 
parents  belongs  to  both  of  them,  if  they  both  wish  to  have  united  con- 
trol of  it,  and,  if  they  don't  wish  this,  that  they  can  settle  between  them- 
selves as  to  which  one  should  have  it.  The  question  is  one,  I  think,  that 
could  usually  be  settled  amicably.  But  if  some  unusual  occasion  were  to 
arise  when  all  efforts  to  settle  it  amicably  were  to  fail,  when  both  parents 
would  strongly  desire  the  child  and  be  equally  competent  to  rear  it,  then, 
possibly,  the  fact  that  the  mother  has  suffered  the  pain  of  child-birth 
might  give  her  a  little  the  stronger  right.  But  I  do  not  feel  perfectly 
sure  that  that  principle  is  right  and  just. 

I  would  like  to  know  if  Mr.  Tucker,  upon  further  consideration,  does 
not  agree  with  me. 

F.  F.  K. 

I  accept  F.'F.  K.'s  challenge,  and,  in  defence  of  the  An- 
archism of  the  sentence  objected  to,  I  offer  to  submit  the 
language  in  which  it  is  phrased  to  any  generally  recognized 
authority  in  English,  for  the  discovery  of  any  authoritarian 
meaning  possibly  therein  contained.  F.  F.  K.  seems  to  mis- 
understand the  use  of  the  word  "shall."  Now,  it  may  be 
ascertained  from  any  decent  dictionary  or  grammar  that  this 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


auxiliary  is  employed,  not  alone  in  the  language  of  command, 
but  also  in  the  language  of  prophecy.  Suppose  I  had  said  that 
the  Anarchists  look  forward  to  a  time  when  all  men  shall  be 
honest.  Would  F.  F.  K.  have  suspected  me  of  desiring  or 
predicting  a  decree  to  that  effect?  I  hardly  think  so.  The 
conclusion  would  simply  have  been  that  I  regarded  honesty  as 
destined  to  be  accepted  by  mankind,  at  some  future  period,  in 
the  shaping  of  their  lives.  Why,  then,  should  it  be  inferred 
from  similar  phraseology  in  regard  to  the  control  of  children 
that  I  anticipate  anything  more  than  a  general  recognition,  in 
the  absence  of  contract,  of  the  mother's  superior  claim,  and  a 
refusal  on  the  part  of  defensive  associations  to  protect  any 
other  claim  than  hers  in  cases  of  dispute  not  guarded  against 
by  specific  contract  ?  That  is  all  that  I  meant,  and  that  is  all 
that  my  language  implies.  The  language  of  prophecy  doubt- 
less had  its  source  in  authority,  but  to-day  the  idea  of  author- 
ity is  so  far  disconnected  from  the  prophetic  form  that  philos- 
ophers and  scientists  who,  reasoning  from  accepted  data,  use 
this  form  in  mapping  out  for  a  space  the  course  of  evolution 
are  not  therefore  accused  of  designs  to  impose  their  sovereign 
wills  upon  the  human  race.  The  editor  of  Liberty  respectfully 
submits  that  he,  too,  may  sometimes  resort  to  the  oracular 
style  which  the  best  English  writers  not  unfrequently  employ  in 
speaking  of  futurity,  without  having  it  imputed  to  him  on  that 
account  that  he  professes  to  speak  either  from  a  throne  or 
from  a  tripod. 

As  to  the  charge  of  departure  from  the  Anarchistic  prin- 
ciple, it  may  be  preferred,  I  think,  against  F.  F.  K.  with  much 
more  reason  than  against  me.  To  vest  the  control  of  any- 
thing indivisible  in  more  than  one  person  seems  to  me  decid- 
edly communistic.  I  perfectly  agree  that  parents  must  be 
allowed  to  "  decide  whether  both,  or  only  one,  and  which  one, 
shall  have  control."  But  if  they  are  foolish  enough  to  decide 
that  both  shall  control,  the  affair  is  sure  to  end  in  government. 
Contract  as  they  may  in  advance  that  both  shall  control,  really 
no  question  of  control  arises  until  they  disagree,  and  then  it  is 
a  logical  impossibility  for  both  to  control.  One  of  the  two  will 
then  control ;  or  else  there  will  be  a  compromise,  in  which  case 
each  will  be  controlled,  just  as  the  king  who  makes  conces- 
sions governs  and  is  governed,  and  as  the  members  of  a  de- 
mocracy govern  and  are  governed.  Liberty  and  individualism 
are  lost  sight  of  entirely. 

I  rejoice  to  know  that  the  tendency  of  evolution  is  towards 
the  increase  of  paternal  love,  it  being  no  part  of  my  intention 
to  abolish,  stifle,  or  ignore  that  highly  commendable  emotion. 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  149 


I  expect  its  influence  in  the  future  upon  both  child  and  parent 
to  be  far  greater  and  better  than  it  ever  has  been  in  the  past. 
Upon  the  love  of  both  father  and  mother  for  their  offspring  I 
chiefly  rely  for  that  harmonious  co-operation  in  the  guidance 
of  their  children's  lives  which  is  so  much  to  be  desired.  But 
the  important  question,  so  far  as  Anarchy  is  concerned,  is  to 
whom  this  guidance  properly  belongs  when  such  co-operation 
has  proved  impossible.  If  that  question  is  not  settled  in  ad- 
vance by  contract,  it  will  have  to  be  settled  by  arbitration,  and 
the  board  of  arbitration  will  be  expected  to  decide  in  accord- 
ance with  some  principle.  In  my  judgment  it  will  be  recog- 
nized that  the  control  of  children  is  a  species  of  property,  and 
that  the  superior  labor  title  of  the  mother  will  secure  her  right 
to  the  guardianship  of  her  children  unless  she  freely  signs  it 
away.  With  my  present  light,  if  I  were  on  such  a  board  of 
arbitration,  my  vote  would  be  for  the  mother  every  time. 

For  this  declaration  many  of  the  friends  of  woman's  eman- 
cipation (F.  F.  K.,  however,  not  among  them)  are  ready  to 
abuse  me  roundly.  I  had  expected  their  approval  rather.  For 
years  in  their  conventions  I  have  seen  this  "  crowning  out- 
rage," that  woman  is  denied  the  control  and  keeping  of  her 
children,  reserved  by  them  to  be  brought  forward  as  a  coup  de 
grace  for  the  annihilation  of  some  especially  obstinate  oppo- 
nent. Now  this  control  and  keeping  I  grant  her  unreservedly, 
and,  lo!  I  am  a  cursed  thing ! 


ANARCHY  AND  RAPE. 

[Liberty,  March  10,  1888.] 

With  a  plentiful  sprinkling  of  full-face  Gothic  exclamation 
points  and  a  series  of  hysterical  shrieks,  the  journal  of  U?iited 
Labor,  organ  of  pious  Powderly  and  pure  Litchman,  rushes 
upon  Liberty  with  the  inquiry  whether  "Anarchy  asks  liberty 
to  ruin  little  girls."  Liberty  is  thus  questioned  simply  because 
it  characterized  those  who  petitioned  the  Massachusetts  leg- 
islature for  a  further  raise  of  the  "  age  of  consent "  to  sixteen 
as  "a  bevy  of  impertinent  and  prudish  women."  The  answer 
shall  be  direct  and  explicit.  Anarchy  does  not  ask  liberty  to 
ruin  little  girls,  but  it  does  ask  liberty  of  sexual  association 
with  girls  already  several  years  past  the  age  of  womanhood, 
equipped  by  nature  with  the  capacity  of  maternity,  and  even 
acknowledged  by  the  law  to  be  competent  to  marry  and  begin 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


the  rearing  of  a  family.  To  hold  a  man  whose  association 
with  such  a  girl  has  been  sanctioned  by  her  free  consent  and 
even  her  ardent  desire  guilty  of  the  crime  of  rape  and  to  sub- 
ject him  to  life  imprisonment  is  an  outrage  to  which  a  whole 
font  of  exclamation  points  would  do  scant  justice.  If  there 
are  any  mothers,  as  the  Journal  of  United  Labor  pretends,  who 
look  upon  such  an  outrage  as  a  protection  against  outrage, 
they  confess  thereby  not  only  their  callous  disregard  of  human 
rights,  but  the  imbecility  of  their  daughters  and  their  own  re- 
sponsibility for  the  training  that  has  allowed  them  to  grow  up 
in  imbecility.  "  Has  Liberty  a  daughter  ?  "  further  inquires  the 
Journal  of  United  Labor.  Why,  certainly;  Order  is  Liberty's 
daughter,  acknowledged  as  such  from  the  first.  "  Liberty  not 
the  daughter,  but  the  mother,  of  Order."  But  it  is  needless  to 
raise  the  "  age  of  consent "  on  account  of  Liberty's  daughter. 
Order  fears  no  seducer.  When  all  daughters  have  such  moth- 
ers and  all  mothers  such  daughters,  the  Journal  of  United 
Labor  may  continue  to  regard  them  as  the  "  worst  of  woman- 
kind," but  the  powers  of  the  seducer  will  be  gone,  no  matter 
what  may  be  fixed  as  the  "  age  of  consent."  Because  Liberty 
holds  this  opinion  and  expresses  it,  Powderly  and  Litchman 
profess  to  consider  her  a  "  disgrace  to  the  press  of  America." 
Really  they  do  not  so  look  upon  her,  but  they  are  very  anxious 
to  win  popular  approval  by  pandering  to  popular  prejudices, 
and  so  they  took  advantage  of  the  opportunity  which  Liberty's 
words  gave  them  to  pose  as  champions  of  outraged  virtue 
while  endeavoring  to  identify  Anarchism  with  wholesale  rape 
of  the  innocents. 


AN  UNFORTUNATE  ANALOGY. 

[Liberty,  November  5,  1887.] 

A  question  has  arisen  in  England  whether  the  public  have 
a  right  of  access  to  the  top  of  Latrigg  in  Keswick  Vale,  the 
public  claiming  such  right  and  certain  landowners  denying 
it.  It  is  probable  that  the  claim  of  the  public  is  good,  but,  as 
I  am  not  informed  regarding  the  basis  of  the  landholders' 
title  in  this  particular  case,  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  discuss  the 
matter.  The  London  Jus,  however,  has  discussed  the  matter, 
and  I  refer  to  it  only  to  expose  an  inconsistency  into  which 
that  journal  has  fallen.  It  seems  that  Mr.  Plimsoll,  who 
champions  the  claim  of  the  public,  has  made  this  declaration  s 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE. 


"  What  Parliament  Las  given  Parliament  can  take  away." 
Not  rightly,  declares  Jus  ;  and  it  imagines  a  case. 

Suppose  Parliament  grants  a  life-pension  to  a  distinguished  general  ; 
suppose  the  next  Parliament,  being  of  another  color,  rejects  the  grant,  will 
Mr  Plimsoll  pretend  that  in  such  a  case  Parliament  would  have  the  right 
to  take  it  away  ?  Not  he  ;  no  honest  man  could  think  so  for  a  moment. 
Private  persons  do  not  consider  themselves  entitled  to  take  back  that 
which  they  have  given  to  others,  even  without  any  consideration  whatever. 

True,  so  far  as  private  persons  are  concerned.  But  private 
persons  do  consider  themselves  entitled  to  take  back  that 
which  has  been  taken  from  them  and  given  to  others.  If  the 
body  politic,  or  State,  which  compels  A  to  belong  to  it  and 
aid  in  supporting  it,  pledges  a  certain  sum  anriually  to  B,  and, 
to  meet  this  pledge,  forcibly  collects  annually  from  A  a  pro- 
portional part  of  the  sum,  then  A,  when  he  becomes  strong 
enough,  may  not  only  decline  to  make  any  further  annual 
payments  to  B,  but  may  take  from  B  all  that  he  has  been 
compelled  to  pay  to  him  in  the  past.  To-day,  to  be  sure,  A, 
as  soon  as  he  acquires  power,  generally  vitiates  his  claim 
upon  B  by  proceeding  to  pledge  others  in  the  same  manner 
in  which  others,  when  they  were  in  power,  had  pledged  him. 
But  this  fact,  being  accidental  rather  than  essential,  has  no 
logical  bearing  upon  the  question  of  A's  right  to  recover  from 
B.  It  follows,  then,  that  private  persons  cannot  be  held  to 
the  pledges  of  an  association  which  forces  them  into  its  mem- 
bership; and  that  Parliament,  which  represents  the  will  of  a 
majority  of  the  members  of  such  an  association,  and  of  a 
majority  which  necessarily  varies  continually  in  its  make-up, 
stands  on  a  very  different  footing  from  that  of  private  persons 
in  the  matter  of  observing  or  violating  contracts. 

But  suppose  the  position  of  Jus  that  they  stand  on  the 
same  footing  to  be  granted.  What  has  Jus  to  say  then  ? 
This— namely,  that  it  finds  itself  in  sympathy  with  Air.  Plim- 
soll and  the  people  of  Keswick  in  their  desire  to  enjoy  the 
beautiful  scenery  of  Latrigg  ;  that  it  believes  the  right  of 
way  to  such  enjoyment  was  originally  theirs  ;  and  that  the 
sooner  they  recover  it,  the  better.  But  how  ?  It  has  already 
denied  that  "what  Parliament  has  given  Parliament  can  take 
away  "  ;  so  it  finds  itself  obliged  to  pick  its  way  around  this 
difficulty  by  the  following  devious  path  : 

If  Parliament  has  given  awav  to  private  persons  that  which  ought  to 
have  been  retained  in  public  hands  for  the  public  use  and  benefit,  with  or 
without  sufficient  (or  cfny)  consideration,  then  let  the  A  ahon  keep  faith 
and  buy  it  back. 


INSTEAD   OF    A  ROOK. 


The  italics  are  mine.  Bearing  them  in  mind,  let  us  return 
to  the  analogy  between  Parliament  and  private  persons.  Do 
private  persons,  then,  consider  themselves  entitled  to  buy  back 
that  which  they  have  given  to  others,  on  terms  fixed  by  them- 
selves, and  whether  the  others  desire  to  sell  or  net  ?  That  the 
private  person  who  gives  a  thing  to  another  and  afterwards 
compels  the  latter  to  sell  it  back  to  him  is  less  a  thief  than  he 
would  have  been  if  he  had  taken  it  back  without  compensa- 
tion is  a  principle  unrecognized,  so  far  as  I  know,  either  in 
law  or  in  political  economy.  No  more  can  be  said  of  such  a 
robber  than  that  he  shows  some  consideration  for  his  victim. 
Then,  if  Parliament  and  private  persons  stand  on  the  same 
footing,  whence  does  Jus  derive  the  right  of  Parliament  to 
forcibly  buy  back  what  it  has  given  away  ? 

Jus  is  a  fine  paper.  It  maintains  certain  phases  of  Individ- 
ualism with  splendid  force  and  vigor.  But  it  continually  puts 
itself  into  awkward  situations  simply  by  failing  to  be  thorough 
in  its  Individualism.  Here,  for  instance,  it  denies  the  right  of 
the  State  to  take  from  the  individual  without  compensation 
what  it  has  given  hinij  but  affirms  the  right  of  the  State  to 
compel  the  individual  to  sell  to  it  what  it  has  given  him.  In 
a  word,  Jus  is  not  Anarchistic.  It  does  not  favor  individual 
liberty  in  all  things.  It  would  confine  interference  with  it 
within  much  narrower  limits  than  those  generally  set  by 
governmentalists,  but,  after  all,  like  all  other  governmentalists, 
it  fixes  the  limits  in  accordance  with  arbitrary  standards  pre- 
scribing that  interference  must  be  carried  on  only  by  methods 
and  for  purposes  which  it  approves  on  grounds  foreign  to  the 
belief  in  liberty  as  the  necessary  condition  of  social  harmony. 


THE  BOYCOTT  AND  ITS  LIMIT. 

[Liberty,  December  3,  1887.] 

London  Jus  does  not  see  clearly  in  the  matter  of  boycott- 
ing. "Every  man,"  it  says,  "  has  a  perfect  right  to  refuse  to 
hold  intercourse  with  any  other  man  or  class  from  whom  he 
chooses  to  keep  aloof.  But  where  does  liberty  come  in  when 
several  persons  conspire  together  to  put  pressure  upon  another 
to  induce  or  coerce  him  (by  threats  expressed  or  implied)  to  re- 
frain also  from  intercourse  with  the  boycotted  man?  It  is  not 
that  the  boycotted  man  has  grounds  of  legal  complaint  against 
those  who  voluntarily  put  him  in  Coventry.    His  complaint  is 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  153 


against  those  who  compel  (under  whatsoever  sanction)  third 
persons  to  do  likewise.  Surely  the  distinction  is  specific." 
Specific,  yes,  but  not  rational.  The  line  of  real  distinction 
does  not  run  in  the  direction  which  Jus  tries  to  give  it.  Its 
course  does  not  lie  between  the  second  person  and  a  third 
person,  but  between  the  threats  of  invasion  and  the  threats  of 
ostracism  by  which  either  the  second  or  a  third  person  is  co- 
erced or  induced.  All  boycotting,  no  matter  of  what  person, 
consists  either  in  the  utterance  of  a  threat  or  in  its  execution. 
A  man  has  a  right  to  threaten  what  he  has  a  right  to  execute. 
The  boundary-line  of  justifiable  boycotting  is  fixed  by  the 
nature  of  the  threat  used.  B  and  C,  laborers,  are  entitled  to 
quit  buying  shoes  of  A,  a  manufacturer,  for  any  reason  what- 
ever or  for  no  reason  at  all.  Therefore  they  are  entitled  to 
say  to  A  :  "  If  you  do  not  discharge  the  non-union  men  in 
your  employ,  we  will  quit  buying  shoes  of  you."  Similarly 
they  are  entitled  to  quit  buying  clothes  of  D,  a  tailor.  There- 
fore they  are  entitled  to  say  to  D  :  "  If  you  do  not  co-operate 
with  us  in  endeavoring  to  induce  A  to  discharge  his  non-union 
employees, — that  is,  if  you  do  not  quit  buying  shoes  of  him, — 
we  will  quit  buying  clothes  of  you."  But  B  and  C  are  not 
entitled  to  burn  A's  shop  or  D's  shop.  Hence  they  are  not 
entitled  to  say  to  A  that  they  will  burn  his  shop  unless  he  dis- 
charges his  non-union  employees,  or  to  D  that  they  will  burn 
his  shop  unless  he  withdraws  his  patronage  from  A.  Is  it  not 
clear  that  the  rightful  attitude  of  B  and  C  depends  wholly 
upon  the  question  whether  or  not  the  attitude  is  invasive  in 
itself,  and  not  at  all  upon  the  question  whether  the  object  of  it 
is  A  or  D? 


A  CASE  WHERE  DISCUSSION  CONVINCED. 

'[Liberty,  February^  1,  1888. J 

One  word  as  to  boycotting  itself.  Jus  was  some  weeks  ago  taken  to 
task  by  the  Boston  Liberty  for  incorrectly  defining  the  term.  "  The  line 
of  distinction,"  says  Liberty,  "does  not  run  in  the  direction  which  Jus 
tries  to  give  it.  Its  course  does  not  lie  between  the  second  person  and  a 
third  person,  but  between  the  threats  of  invasion  and  the  threats  of  ostra- 
cism by  which  either  the  second  or  a  third  person  is  coerced  or  induced. 
All  boycotting,  no  matter  of  what  person,  consists  either  in  the  utterance 
of  a  threat  or  in  its  execution.  A  man  has  a  right  to  threaten  what  he  has 
a  right  to  execute.  The  boundary -line  of  justifiable  boycotting  is  fixed  by 
the  nature  of  the  threat  used."  This  seems  reasonable  enough,  and, 
until  we  see  the  contrary  proved,  we  shall  accept  this  view  in  preference 


'54 


tNSTEAt)  OF  A  ftOOK. 


to  that  which  we  have  put  forward  hitherto.  At  the  same  time,  we  are 
not  so  absolutely  convinced  of  its  soundness  as  to  close  our  eyes  to  the 
fact  that  there  may  be  a  good  deal  said  on  the  other  side.  The  doctrine 
of  conspiracy  enters  in.  That  which  may  not  be  illegal  or  even  wrong  in 
one  person  becomes  both  illegal  and  morally  wrong  in  a  crowd  of  persons. 
— Jus. 

Liberty  would  be  unfair  to  Jus  if  it  should  not  present 
the  evidence  of  that  journal's  fairness  by  printing  its  hand- 
some acknowledgment  of  error  regarding  boycotting.  Jus  still 
thinks,  however,  that  something  may  be  said  on  the  other  side, 
and  declares  that  there  are  some  things  that  one  person  may 
rightfully  do  which  become  illegal  and  immoral  when  done  by 
a  crowd.  I  should  like  to  have  Jus  give  an  instance.  There 
are  some  invasive  acts  or  threats  which  cannot  be  executed  by 
individuals,  but  require  crowds — or  conspiracies,  if  you  will — 
for  their  accomplishment.  But  the  guilt  still  arises  from  the 
invasive  character  of  the  act,  and  not  from  the  fact  of  con- 
spiracy. No  individual  has  a  right  to  do  any  act  which  is 
invasive,  but  any  number  of  individuals  may  rightfully  "  con- 
spire" to  commit  any  act  which  is  non-invasive.  Jus  ac- 
knowledges the  force  of  Liberty's  argument  that  A  may  as 
properly  boycott  C  as  B.  Further  consideration,  I  think,  will 
compel  it  to  acknowledge  that  A  and  B  combined  may  as 
properly  boycott  C  as  may  A  alone  or  B  alone. 


A  SPIRIT  MORE  EVIL  THAN  ALCOHOL. 

[Liberty,  August  13,  1887.] 

The  authority  of  learning,  the  tyranny  of  science,  which 
Bakounine  foresaw,  deprecated,  and  denounced,  never  found 
blunter  expression  than  in  an  article  by  T.  B.  Wakeman  in 
the  August  number  of  the  Freethinkers'  -Magazine  in  which 
the  writer  endeavors  to  prove,  on  scientific  grounds  alone, 
that  alcohol  is  an  unmitigated  evil,  a  poison  that  ought  never 
to  be  taken  into  the  human  system.  My  knowledge  of  chem- 
istry and  physiology  is  too  limited  to  enable  me  to  judge  of 
the  scientific  soundness  of  the  attempted  demonstration  ;  but 
I  do  know  that  it  is  admirably  well  written,  wonderfully  at- 
tractive, powerfully  plausible,  important  if  true,  and  there- 
fore worthy  of  answer  by  those  who  alone  are  competent  to 
answer  it  if  it  can  be  answered.  Such  an  answer  I  hope  to 
see  ;  and,  if  it  arrives,  I  shall  weigh  it  against  Mr.  Wakeman's 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE.  155 

argument,  award  a  verdict  for  myself,  and  act  upon  it  for  my- 
self,— if  I  am  allowed  to  do  so. 

But  it  is  plain  that,  if  Mr.  Wakeman's  party  gets  into  power, 
no  such  privilege  will  be  granted  me.  For,  after  having  as- 
serted most  positively  that  this  ''verdict  of  science  "  can  be 
made  so  manifest  that  it  will  become  a  "personal  prohibition 
law,  which  no  person  in  his  senses  would  violate  any  more  than 
he  would  cut  his  own  throat,"  in  which  case  its  compulsory  en- 
forcement will  be  entirely  unnecessary  except  upon  persons  out 
of  their  senses,  Mr.  Wakeman  goes  on  to  say  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  lawyers  (of  whom  he  is  one)  to  see  to  it  that  the  manu- 
facture, sale,  and  use  of  alcohol  as  a  beverage  shall  be  out- 
lawed, proscribed,  and  prohibited  just  as  arsenic  is,  and  that, 
like  arsenic,  it  shall  be  sold  only  as  a  labelled  poison.  Rather 
a  summary  way,  it  seems  to  me,  of  cramming  science  down  the 
throats  of  people  who  like  a  glass  of  claret  better  !  "Ah!  " 
some  reader  will  say,  "  you  forget  that  this  compulsory  absti- 
nence is  only  to  be  enforced  upon  people  out  of  their  senses, 
probably  hopeless  sots  who  are  a  public  danger." 

This  consideration  possibly  would  afford  a  grain  of  consola- 
tion, had  not  Mr.  Wakeman  taken  pains  in  another  paragraph 
to  leave  no  one  in  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  in 
his  senses."  It  is  not  applicable,  he  declares,  to  any  drinker 
of  alcohol  who  claims  to  "  know  when  he  has  enough,"  for 
"  that  very  remark  shows  that  alcohol  has  already  stolen  away 
his  brains."  His  position,  then,  is  that  the  law  of  total  absti- 
nence will  enforce  itself  upon  all  men  in  their  senses,  for  no 
man  in  his  senses  will  drink  alcohol  after  hearing  the  verdict 
of  science  ;  but  that  men  who  drink  alcohol,  however  moder- 
ately, are  out  of  their  senses,  and  must  be  "  treated,  by  force 
if  necessary,  as  diseased  lunatics." 

Was  any  priest,  any  pope,  any  czar  ever  guilty  of  teaching 
a  more  fanatical,  more  bigoted,  more  tyrannical  doctrine  ? 

Does  Mr.  Wakeman  imagine  that  he  can  restore  men  to 
their  senses  by  any  such  disregard  of  their  individualities  ? 

Does  he  think  that  the  way  to  strengthen  the  individual's 
reason  and  will  is  to  force  them  into  disuse  by  substituting  for 
them  the  reason  and  will  of  a  body  of  savants  ? 

In  that  case  I  commend  him  to  the  words  of  Bakounine  : 
"  A  society  which  should  obey  legislation  emanating  from  a  sci- 
entific academy,  not  because  it  understood  itself  the  rational 
character  of  this  legislation  (in  which  case  the  existence  of 
the  academy  would  become  useless),  but  because  this  legisla- 
tion, emanating  from  the  academy,  was  imposed  in  the  name 
of  a  science  which  it  venerated  without  comprehending, — such 


'56 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


a  society  would  be  a  society,  not  of  men,  but  of  brutes.  It 
would  be  a  second  edition  of  those  missions  in  Paraguay  which 
submitted  so  long  to  the  government  of  the  Jesuits.  It  would 
surely  and  rapidly  descend  to  the  lowest  stage  of  idiocy." 

The  mightiest  foe  of  the  human  mind  is  not  alcohol,  by 
any  means.  It  is  that  spirit  of  arrogance  which  prompts  the 
conclusion  of  Mr.  Wakeman's  essay,  and  which,  encouraged, 
would  induce  a  mental  paralysis  far  more  universal  and  far 
more  hopeless  than  any  that  science  will  ever  be  able  to  trace 
to  the  spirit  of  alcohol. 


A  WORD  ABOUT  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT. 

[Liberty,  August  30,  1890.] 

Since  the  execution  of  Kemmler,  I  have  seen  it  stated  re- 
peatedly in  the  press,  and  especially  in  the  reform  press,  and 
even  in  the  Anarchistic  press,  that  that  execution  was  a  mur- 
der. I  have  also  seen  it  stated  that  capital  punishment  is 
murder  in  its  worst  form.  I  should  like  to  know  upon  what 
principle  of  human  society  these  assertions  are  based  and 
justified. 

If  they  are  based  on  the  principle  that  punishment  inflicted 
by  a  compulsory  institution  which  manufactures  the  criminals 
is  worse  than  the  crime  punished,  I  can  understand  them  and 
in  some  degree  sympathize  with  them.  But  in  that  case  I 
cannot  see  why  capital  punishment  should  be  singled  out  for 
emphatic  and  exceptional  denunciation.  The  same  objection 
applies  as  clearly  to  punishment  that  simply  takes  away  liberty 
as  to  punishment  that  takes  away  life. 

The  use  of  the  word  capital  makes  me  suspect  that  this  de- 
nunciation rests  on  some  other  ground  than  that  which  I  have 
just  suggested.    But  what  is  this  ground  ? 

If  society  has  a  right  to  protect  itself  against  such  men  as 
Kemmler,  as  is  admitted,  why  may  it  not  do  so  in  whatever 
way  proves  most  effective  ?  If  it  is  urged  that  capital  punish- 
ment is  not  the  most  effective  way,  such  an  argument,  well 
sustained  by  facts,  is  pertinent  and  valid.  This  position  also 
I  can  understand,  and  with  it,  if  not  laid  down  as  too  absolute 
a  rule,  I  sympathize.  But  this  is  not  to  say  that  the  society 
which  inflicts  capital  punishment  commits  murder.  Murder 
is  an  offensive  act.  The  term  cannot  be  applied  legitimately 
to  any  defensive  act.    And  capital  punishment,  however  in- 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE.  157 

effective  it  may  be  and  through  whatever  ignorance  it  may  be 
resorted  to,  is  a  strictly  defensive  act, — at  least  in  theory.  Of 
course  compulsory  institutions  often  make  it  a  weapon  of 
offence,  but  that  does  not  affect  the  question  of  capital  punish- 
ment per  se  as  distinguished  from  other  forms  of  punishment. 

For  one,  I  object  to  this  distinction  unless  it  is  based  on  ra- 
tional grounds.  In  doing  so,  I  am  not  moved  by  any  desire 
to  defend  the  horrors  of  the  gallows,  the  guillotine,  or  the 
electric  chair.  They  are  as  repulsive  to  me  as  to  any  one. 
And  the  conduct  of  the  physicians,  the  ministers,  the  news- 
papers, and  the  officials  disgusts  me.  These  horrors  all  tell 
most  powerfully  against  the  expediency  and  efficiency  of  cap- 
ital punishment.  But  nevertheless  they  do  not  make  it  murder. 
I  insist  that  there  is  nothing  sacred  in  the  life  of  an  invader, 
and  there  is  no  valid  principle  of  human  society  that  forbids 
the  invaded  to  protect  themselves  in  whatever  way  they  can. 


NO  PLACE  FOR  A  PROMISE. 

{Liberty,  November  12,  1892.] 

A  Promise,  according  to  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term,  is  a 
binding  declaration  made  by  one  person  to  another  to  do,  or  not  to  do,  a 
certain  act  at  some  future  time.  According  to  this  definition,  there  can, 
I  think,  be  no  place  for  a  promise  in  a  harmonious,  progressive  world. 
Promises  and  progress  are  incompatible,  unless  all  the  parties  are,  at  all 
times,  as  free  to  break  them  as  they  were  to  make  them  ;  and  this  admis- 
sion eliminates  the  binding  element,  and,  therefore,  destroys  the  popular 
meaning  of  a  promise. 

In  a  progressive  world  we  know  more  to-morrow  than  we  know  to-day. 
Also  harmony  implies  absence  of  external  coercion  ;  for,  all  coercion 
being  social  discord,  a  promise  that  appears  just  and  feels  agreeable 
when  measured  with  to-day's  knowledge  may  appear  unjust  and  become 
disagreeable  when  measured  with  the  standard  of  to-morrow's  knowl- 
edge ;  and  in  so  far  as  the  fulfilment  of  a  promise  becomes  disagreeable 
or  impossible,  it  is  an  element  of  discord,  and  discord  is  the  opposite  of 
harmony.  H.  Olerich,  Jr. 

Holstein,  Iowa. 

But  it  is  equally  true,  my  good  friend,  that  the  non-fulfil- 
ment of  a  promise  is  disagreeable  to  the  promisee,  and  in  so 
far  it  is  an  element  of  discord,  and  discord  is  the  opposite  of 
harmony.  You  need  noc  look  for  harmony  until  people  are 
disposed  to  be  harmonious.  But  justice,  or  a  close  approxi- 
mation thereto,  can  be  secured  even  from  ill-disposed  peo- 
ple.   I  have  no  doubt  of  the  right  of  any  man  to  whom,  for  a 


INSTEAD- OF  A  BOOK. 


consideration,  a  promise  has  been  made,  to  insist,  even  by 
force,  upon  the  fulfilment  of  that  promise,  provided  the  pro- 
mise be  not  one  whose  fulfilment  would  invade  third  parties. 
And  if  the  promisee  has  a  right  to  use  force  himself  for  such 
a  purpose,  he  has  a  right  to  secure  such  co-operative  force 
from  others  as  they  are  willing  to  extend.  These  others,  in 
turn,  have  a  right  to  decide  what  sort  of  promises,  if  any,  they 
will  help  him  to  enforce.  When  it  comes  to  the  determi- 
nation of  this  point,  the  question  is  one  of  policy  solely;  and 
very  likely  it  will  be  found  that  the  best  way  to  secure  the 
fulfilment  of  promises  is  to  have  it  understood  in  advance 
that  the  fulfilment  is  not  to  be  enforced.  But  as  a  matter  of 
justice  and  liberty,  it  must  always  be  remembered  that  a 
promise  is  a  two-sided  affair.  And  in  our  anxiety  to  leave  the 
promisor  his  liberty,  we  must  not  forget  the  superior  right  of 
the  promisee.  I  say  superior,  because  the  man  who  fulfils  a 
promise,  however  unjust  the  contract,  acts  voluntarily,  where- 
as the  man  who  has  received  a  promise  is  defrauded- by  its  non- 
fulfilment,  invaded,  deprived  of  a  portion  of  his  liberty  against 
his  will. 


ON  PICKET  DUTY. 

Bullion  thinks  that  "civilization  consists  in  teaching  men 
to  govern  themselves  and  then  letting  them  do  it."  A  very 
slight  change  suffices  to  make  this  stupid  statement  an  en- 
tirely accurate  one,  after  which  it  would  read  :  "  Civilization 
consists  in  teaching  men  to  govern  themselves  by  letting  them 
do  it." — Liberty,  August  20,  1881. 

People  in  general,  and  the  governmental  Socialists  in  par- 
ticular, think  they  see  a  new  argument  in  favor  of  their 
beloved  State  in  the  assistance  which  it  is  rendering  to  the 
suffering  and  starving  victims  of  the  Mississippi  inundation. 
Well,  such  work  is  better  than  forging  new  chains  to  keep  the 
people  in  subjection,  we  allow ;  but  it  is  not  worth  the  price 
that  is  paid  for  it.  The  people  cannot  afford  to  be  enslaved 
for  the  sake  of  being  insured.  If  there  were  no  other  alterna- 
tive, they  would  do  better,  on  the  whole,  to  take  Nature's  risks 
and  pay  her  penalties  as  best  they  might.  But  Liberty  supplies 
another  alternative,  and  furnishes  better  insurance  at  cheaper 
rates.  The  philosophy  of  voluntary  mutualism  is  universal  in 
its  application,  not  omitting  the  victims  of  natural  disaster. 


THE   INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,    AND  THE  STATE. 


159 


Mutual  banking,  by  the  organization  of  credit,  will  secure  the 
greatest  possible  production  of  wealth  and  its  most  equitable 
distribution  ;  and  mutual  insurance,  by  the  organization  of 
risk,  will  do  the  utmost  that  can  be  done  to  mitigate  and 
equalize  the  suffering  arising  from  its  accidental  destruction. 
— Liberty \  April  1,  1882. 

Democracy  has  been  denned  as  the  principle  that  "  one  man 
is  as  good  as  another,  if  not  a  little  better."  Anarchy  may  be 
defined  as  the  principle  that  one  government  is  as  bad  as 
another,  if  not  a  little  worse. — Liberty,  May  12,  1883. 

In  a  lecture  in  Milwaukee  a  short  time  ago  Clara  Neyman 
of  New  York  said  that  "  if  women  could  have  the  right  to 
vote,  they  would  devise  better  means  of  reform  than  those  of 
narrow  prohibition."  Yes,  indeed  ;  there  would  be  nothing 
narrow  about  their  prohibition  ;  it  would  be  of  the  broadest 
kind,  including  everything  from  murder  to  non-attendance  at 
church. — Liberty,  May  12,  1883. 

Eighteen  men  and  women  who  had  been  punished  once  for 
all  the  crimes  they  had  ever  beooi  convicted  of  committing, 
and  against  whom  there  was  no  shred  of  evidence  of  having 
committed  any  new  crime,  or  of  harboring  any  intention  of 
committing  any  new  crime,  were  taken  into  custody  by  the 
New  York  police  on  Thursday,  August  6,  on  no  pretext  what- 
ever save  that  these  persons  had  the  reputation  of  being  pro- 
fessional pick-pockets,  and  that  it  was  the  part  of  prudence 
to  keep  such  characters  in  jail  until  after  the  Grant  obsequies, 
when  they  might  be  arraigned  in  court  and  discharged  for 
want  of  evidence  against  them.  That  is  to  say,  eighteen 
persons,  presumably  innocent  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  had  to  be 
deprived  of  their  liberty  and  kept  in  dungeons  for  four  days, 
in  order  that  some  hundreds  of  thousands  of  people,  half  of 
them  numskulls  and  the  other  half  hypocrites,  might  not  be 
obliged  to  keep  their  hands  on  their  pocket-books  while  they 
shed  crocodile  tears  at  the  grave  of  one  of  the  foremost 
abettors  of  theft  and  plunder  which  this  century  has  produced. 
And  the  upholders  of  governments  continue  to  prate  of  the 
insecurity  that  would  prevail  without  them,  and  to  boast  of 
the  maxim,  while  thus  violating  it,  that  "  it  is  better  that 
ninety-nine  guilty  men  should  escape  than  that  one  innocent 
man  should  suffer." — Liberty,  August  15,  1885. 

"Whenever  it  is  proposed,"  writes  W.  J.  Potter  in  the 
Lndex,  "that   the   voluntary  system    for  religion   shall  be 


i6o 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


adopted  and  trusted  wholly,  there  are  many  timid  folk  who 
start  up  with  the  warning  that  religion  would  be  imperilled. 
Such  people  do  not  appear  to  have  much  confidence  in  the 
power  of  religion  to  maintain  itself  in  the  world."  By  similar 
reasoning,  how  much  confidence  does  Mr.  Potter,  who  would 
prohibit  people  from  reading  literature  that  does  not  satisfy 
his  standard  of  purity,  who  would  prohibit  people  from  drink- 
ing liquors  that  do  not  satisfy  his  standard  of  sobriety,  who 
would  compel  people  to  be  charitable  by  making  them  pay 
taxes  for  the  support  of  alms-houses  and  hospitals,  and  who 
\vould  compel  people  to  be  learned,  and  still  other  people  to 
pay  the  expense  of  their  learning, — how  much  confidence,  I 
Say,  does  Mr.  Potter  appear  to  have  in  the  power  of  purity, 
temperance,  benevolence,  and  education  to  maintain  them- 
selves in  the  world?  Mr.  Potter  should  learn  of  Auberon 
Herbert  that  "  every  measure  to  which  a  man  objects  is  a 
Church-rate  if  you  have  the  courage  and  the  logic  to  see 
it." — Liberty,  September  12,  1885. 

"  No  man  who  puts  any  conscience  into  his  voting,  or  who 
acts  from  proper  self-respect,"  says  the  Boston  Herald,  "  will 
consider  himself  bound  to  support  a  dishonest  or  unfit  can- 
didate merely  because  he  was  '  fairly  nominated  '  by  the  ma- 
jority of  his  party."  But  the  Herald  believes  that  every  man 
who  puts  any  conscience  into  his  conduct,  or  who  acts  from 
proper  self-respect,  should  consider  himself  bound  to  support 
and  obey  a  dishonest  or  unfit  official  merely  because  he  was 
fairly  elected  by  the  majority  of  his  countrymen.  Where  is 
the  obligation  in  the  latter  case  more  than  in  the  former  ? 
"  Our  country,  right  or  wrong,"  is  as  immoral  a  sentiment  as 
"  our  party,  right  or  wrong."  The  Herald  and  its  mugwump 
friends  should  beware  of  their  admissions.  They  will  find 
that  the  "  divine  right  to  bolt  "  leads  straight  to  Anarchy. 
— Liberty,  September  12,  1885. 

To  the  Czar  of  Russia  is  due  the  credit  of  applying  practi- 
cally to  taxation  the  reductio  ad  absurdum.  Heretofore  all  his 
subjects  have  enjoyed  at  least  the  highly  estimable  privilege 
of  praying  for  their  rights  free  of  cost.  Any  morning  any  of 
them  could  put  in  as  many  petitions  as  they  chose  to  Alex- 
ander himself  or  any  of  his  ministers  for  relief  from  any 
grievance  whatsoever.  Now,  however,  this  state  of  things  is 
no  more.  The  last  liberty  of  the  Russian  has  been  taken  from 
him.  The  right  of  petition  has  been  made  the  subject  of  a  tax. 
Before  the  aggrieved  citizen  can  make  his  grievance  officially 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  l6l 


known,  he  must  pay  sixty  kopecks  into  the  treasury  of  His 
Imperial  Nibs  for  the  purchase  of  a  stamp  to  put  upon  his 
document.  Other  sovereigns  have  taxed  every  other  right 
under  the  sun,  but  it  was  left  for  Alexander  III.  to  tax  the 
right  to  demand  your  rights.  No  citizen  of  Russia  can  now 
ask  his  "  dear  father  "  to  let  him  alone  without  paying  sixty 
kopecks  an  ask.  This  is  the  act  of  a  notoriously  cruel  despot. 
See  now  how  much  wiser  the  policy  of  a  reputedly  benevolent 
one,  Dom  Pedro  of  Brazil.  He  also  is  the  author  of  a  novelty 
in  taxation.  No  Brazilian  husband,  who,  becoming  suspicious 
of  his  wife,  detects  her  and  her  lover  in  flagra?ite  delicto,  can 
hereafter  legally  establish  such  discovery  until  he  has  first 
poured  into  the  State's  coffers  a  sum  slightly  exceeding  two 
dollars  and  a  half.  This  is  a  use  of  tyranny  that  almost  in- 
clines me  to  wink  at  it.  Bleeding  domestic  tyrants  is  better 
business  than  political  tyrants  are  wont  to  engage  in.  If  there 
must  be  a  tax-gatherer,  I  shall  vote  for  Dom  Pedro. — Liberty, 
November  14,  1885. 

The  latest  piece  of  governmental  infernalism  is  the  proposi- 
tion to  raise  the  "  age  of  consent  "  to  eighteen  years.  It 
sounds  quite  harmless,  and  belongs  to  that  class  of  measures 
which  especially  allure  stiff-necked  moralists,  pious  prudes, 
"  respectable  "  radicals,  and  all  the  other  divisions  of  the 
"  unco  guid."  But  what  does  it  mean  ?  It  means  that,  if 
a  girl  of  seventeen,  of  mature  and  sane  mind,  whom  even  the 
law  recognizes  as  a  fit  person  to  be  married  and  the  mother  of 
a  family,  shall  love  a  man  and  win  his  love  in  return,  and  if 
this  mutual  love,  by  the  voluntary  and  deliberate  act  of  both 
parties,  shall  find  sexual  expression  outside  of  the  "  forms  of 
law  "  made  and  provided  by  our  stupid  legislatures,  the  man 
may  be  found  guilty  of  committing  rape  and  sent  to  prison  for 
twenty  years.  Such  is  the  real  nature  of  tliis  proposition, 
whatever  attempts  may  be  made  to  conceal  it  beneath  the 
garments  of  sentimentalism  and  moralism.  It  is  an  outrage 
on  manhood,  and  on  womanhood  not  only  an  outrage,  but  an 
insult.  And  yet  it  is  put  forward  in  the  interest  of  young  girls' 
honor.  Honor,  forsooth  !  As  if  it  were  possible  to  more 
basely  dishonor  a  woman  already  several  years  past  the  age  at 
which  Nature  provided  her  with  the  power  of  motherhood  than 
by  telling  her  that  she  hasn't  brains  enough  to  decide  whether 
and  in  what  way  she  will  become  a  mother  ! — Liberty,  April 
17,  1886. 

In  these  days  of  boycott  trials  a  great  deal  of  nonsense  is 
being  talked  and  written  regarding  "blackmail."    This  is 


l62 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


a  question  which  the  principle  of  Liberty  settles  at  once.  It 
may  be  well  to  state  the  verdict  boldly  and  baldly.  Here  it 
is  :  Any  individual  may  place  any  condition  he  chooses,  pro- 
vided the  condition  be  not  in  itself  invasive,  upon  the  doing 
or  not  doing  of  anything  which  he  has  a  right  to  do  or  not  do  ; 
but  no  individual  can  rightfully  be  a  party  to  any  bargain 
which  makes  a  necessarily  invasive  condition  incumbent  upon 
any  of  the  contracting  parties.  From  which  it  follows  that 
an  individual  may  rightfully  "  extort"  money  from  another  by 
"  threatening  "  him  with  certain  consequences,  provided  those 
consequences  are  of  such  a  nature  that  he  can  cause  them 
without  infringing  upon  anybody's  rights.  Such  "  extortion  " 
is  generally  rather  mean  business,  but  there  are  circumstances 
under  which  the  most  high-minded  of  men  might  resort  to  it 
without  doing  violence  to  his  instincts,  and  under  no  circum- 
stances is  it  invasive  and  therefore  wrongful,  unless  the  act 
threatened  is  invasive  and  therefore  wrongful.  Therefore  to 
punish  men  who  have  taken  money  for  lifting  a  boycott  is 
oppression  pure  and  simple.  Whatever  may  be  the  "  com- 
mon law  "  or  the  "  statute  law  "  of  blackmail,  this — to  use  Mr. 
Spooner's  phrase — is  the  natural  law  that  governs  it. — Liberty, 
,  July  31,  1886. 

The  methods  pursued  by  District  Assembly  49  of  the  Knights 
of  Labor  in  the  conduct  of  the  recent  strike  have  driven  Mayor 
Hewitt  and  divers  other  capitalistic  publicists  into  a  state  of 
frenzy,  so  that  they  now  lose  no  opportunity  to  frantically  de- 
clare that  one  set  of  men  must  not  be  permitted  to  deprive 
other  sets  of  men  of  the  right  to  labor.  This  is  a  white- 
bearded  truth,  but,  when  spoken  in  condemnation  of  the 
Knights  of  Labor  for  ordering  members  in  one  branch  of  in- 
dustry to  quit  work  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  strikers 
in  another  branch  by  more  completely  paralyzing  business,  it 
is  given  a  tone  of  impertinence  more  often  characteristic  of 
callow  juvenility  than  of  venerable  old  age.  I  can't  see  for 
my  life  whose  liberty  is  encroached  upon  by  such  a  procedure. 
Certainly  not  that  of  the  men  ordered  to  quit,  because  they 
joined  the  Knights,  a  voluntary  organization,  for  certain  ex- 
press purposes,  of  which  this  was  one,  and,  when  they  no 
longer  approve  it,  can  secede  from  it  and  then  work  when  and 
where  they  please.  Certainly  not,  on  the  other  hand,  that  of 
the  employers  who  thus  lose  their  workmen,  because,  if  it  is 
no  invasion  of  liberty  for  the  individual  workman  to  leave  his 
employer  in  obedience  to  any  whim  whatsoever,  it  is  equally 
no  invasion  of  liberty  for  a  body  of  workmen  to  act  likewise, 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND  THE  STATE.  163 

even  though  they  have  no  grievance  against  their  employer. 
Who,  then,  are  deprived  of  their  liberty  ?  None.  All  this 
outcry  simply  voices  the  worry  of  the  capitalists  over  the 
thought  that  laborers  have  learned  one  of  their  own  tricks, — 
the  art  of  creating  a  corner.  The  policy  of  District  Assembly 
49  (whether  wise  or  foolish  is  another  question)  was  simply 
one  of  cornering  labor,  which  is  much  easier  to  justify  than 
cornering  capital,  because  the  cornered  labor  is  withheld  from 
the  market  by  its  rightful  owners,  while  the  cornered  capital 
is  withheld  by  men  who  never  could  have  obtained  it  except 
through  State-granted  privilege  to  extort  and  rob. — Liberty, 
March  12,  1887. 

All  the  indignation  that  is  rife  over  the  decision  of  Wor- 
cester shoe  manufacturers  and  Chicago  master  builders  to  em- 
ploy only  such  men  as  will  sign  an  agreement  practically 
excluding  them  from  their  unions  is  very  ill  spent.  These 
employers  have  a  perfect  right  to  hire  men  on  whatever  con- 
ditions the  men  will  accept.  If  the  latter  accept  cruel  condi- 
tions, it  is  only  because  they  are  obliged  to  do  so.  What  thus 
obliges  them  ?  Law-sustained  monopolies.  Their  relief  lies, 
then,  not  in  depriving  employers  of  the  right  of  contract,  but 
in  giving  employees  the  same  right  of  contract  without  crip- 
pling them  in  advance. — Liberty,  May  28,  1887. 

Judge  McCarthy,  of  the  Pennsylvania  supreme  court,  having 
to  pass  upon  the  question  whether,  under  the  Pennsylvania 
liquor  law,  licenses  should  be  granted  in  a  certain  county,  de- 
cided against  granting  them  because  he  was  opposed  to  the 
law,  saying  in  the  opinion  which  he  filed  :  "  When  laws  are 
passed  that  seem  to  conflict  with  God's  injunctions,  we  are 
not  compelled  to  obey  them."  I'll  warrant  that  that  same 
judge,  were  an  Anarchist,  arraigned  before  him  for  the  viola- 
tion of  some  unjust  statute,  to  claim  that  he  followed  either 
God's  injunction  or  any  other  criterion  of  conduct  in  his  eyes 
superior  to  the  statute,  would  give  the  prisoner  three  months 
extra  for  his  impudence. — Liberty,  September  10,  1887. 

The  Providence  People  lays  it  down  as  one  of  three  "  funda- 
mentals'" that  "  every  child  should  be  guaranteed  a  free  com- 
plete education,  physically,  mentally,  morally,  and  industri- 
ally." What  is  a  complete  education  ?  Who's  got  one  that  he 
can  guarantee  ?  Who,  if  he  had  one  and  nothing  else,  could 
afford  to  impart  it  to  another  free  of  charge  ?  Even  if  he 
could  afford  to,  why  should  he  do  so  ?  Why  should  he  not  be 
paid  for  doing  so  ?    If  he  is  to  be  paid,  who  should  pay  him 


164 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


except  the  recipient  of  the  education  or  those  upon  whom 
the  recipient  is  directly  dependent  ?  Do  not  these  questions 
cut  under  the  "  fundamental  "  of  the  People  f"  Is  it,  then,  a 
fundamental,  after  all  ? — Liberty,  December  3,  1887. 

Not  content  with  getting  the  "  age  of  consent  "  raised  from 
ten  to  thirteen,  a  bevy  of  impertinent  and  prudish  women 
went  up  to  the  Massachusetts  State  House  the  other  day  and 
asked  that  it  be  raised  again, — this  time  to  eighteen.  When  a 
member  of  the  legislative  committee  suggested  that  the  age 
be  placed  at  thirty-five,  since  the  offence  aimed  at  was  as 
much  a  crime  at  thirty-five  as  eighteen,  the  petitioners  did 
not  seem  to  be  terrified  by  his  logic.  Evidently  these  ladies 
are  not  afraid  that  their  consent  will  ever  be  asked  at  all. — 
Liberty,  February  n,  1888. 

At  the  end  of  a  protest  against  the  addition  of  the  higher 
branches  of  education  to  the  curriculum  of  the  public 
schools,  the  Winsted  Press  says  :  "  The  common  district 
school,  thoroughly  well  conducted,  is  good  enough  for  com- 
mon folks.  Let  the  uncommon  folks  have  uncommon  schools 
and  pay  for  them."  True  enough;  but,  if  common  folks 
should  not  be  made  to  pay  for  uncommon  schools,  why 
should  uncommon  folks  be  made  to  pay  for  common  schools  ? 
—Liberty,  April  28,  1888. 

A  New  Jersey  court  has  decided  that  the  will  of  a  citizen 
of  that  State,  by  which  Henry  George  was  given  a  large  sum 
of  money  for  the  circulation  of  his  books,  is  invalid  on  the 
ground  that  the  bequest  is  not  educational  or  charitable,  but 
intended  for  the  spread  of  doctrines  contrary  to  the  law  of 
the  land.  Probably  the  judge  who  rendered  this  decision 
thinks  regarding  the  determination  of  economic  truth,  as  Mr. 
George  thinks  regarding  the  issue  of  money,  the  collection  of 
rents,  the  carrying  of  letters,  the  running  of  railroads,  and 
sundry  other  things,  that  it  is  "  naturally  a  function  of  gov- 
ernment." And  really,  if  Mr.  George  is  right,  I  do  not  see 
why  the  judge  is  not  right.  Yet  I  agree  that  Mr.  George  has 
correctly  branded  him  as  an  "immortal  ass." — Liberty,  May 
26,  1888. 

A  California  friend  sends  me  a  copy  of  the  Weekly  Star  of 
San  Francisco  containing  an  article  which,  if  a  tenth  part  of 
it  be  true,  shows  that  city  and  State  to  be  under  the  pestilent 
control  of  a  band  of  felons.  At  the  end  of  the  article  the 
writer,  regardless  of  the  fact  that  this  state  of  things  is  the 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE.  1 65 


direct  outgrowth  of  the  government  of  man  by  man,  proposes 
to  add  to  the  p6wers  of  this  government  the  exclusive  man- 
agement of  the  telegraph  system,  of  the  banking  system,  and 
of  corporate  enterprises,  as  well  as  a  vast  new  field  of  judica- 
ture. To  this  political  servant,  who  has  not  even  the  grace  to 
hide  in  the  earth  the  talent  intrusted  to  him,  but  insists  on 
using  it  as  a  scourge  upon  mankind,  the  editor  of  the  Weekly 
Star  says  :  "  Thou  hast  been  ////faithful  over  a  few  things  ;  I 
will  make  thee  ruler  over  many  things."  I  am  not  surprised 
to  find  from  another  column  of  the  same  paper  that  the  edi- 
tor looks  upon  Anarchists  as  pestilent  mischief-makers  and 
noisy  blatherskites. — Liberty,  July  7,  1888. 

Colonel  Ingersoll  has  recently  promulgated'the  theory  that 
the  husband  should  never  be  released  from  the  marriage  con- 
tract unless  the  wife  has  violated  it,  but  that  the  wife  should  be 
allowed  a  divorce  merely  for  the  asking.  Presumably  this  is  in- 
tended for  chivalry,  but  it  really  is  an  insult  to  every  self-re- 
specting woman.  It  is  a  relic  of  the  old  theory  that  woman  is 
an  inferior  being,  with  whom  it  is  impossible  for  a  man  to 
treat  as  an  equal.  No  woman  worthy  of  the  name  and  fully 
understanding  the  nature  of  her  act  would  ever  consent  to 
union  with  a  man  by  any  contract  which  would  not  secure  his 
liberty  equally  with  her  own. — Liberty,  August  18,  1888. 

The  theoretical  position  taken  by  Henry  George  in  regard 
to  competition  is  that  free  trade  should  prevail  everywhere  ex- 
cept in  those  lines  of  business  where  in  the  nature  of  things 
competition  can  exist  only  partially  if  at  all,  and  that  in  such 
lines  there  should  be  a  government  monopoly.  Yet  in  a  recent 
speech  in  England  he  declared  that  it  was  not  quite  clear  to 
him  whether  the  sale  of  liquor  should  be  free  or  monopolized 
by  the  government.  Mr.  George,  then,  if  honest  and  logical, 
must  entertain  a  suspicion  of  the  existence  of  some  natural  re- 
striction upon  competition  in  the  sale  of  liquor.  Will  he  be 
so  good  as  to  point  it  out  ?  No,  he  will  not  ;  and  for  the  rea- 
son that  his  professed  criterion  is  simply  a  juggler's  attempt  to 
conceal  under  something  that  looks  like  a  scientific  formula 
his  arbitrary  method  of  deciding  that  in  such  a  channel  of  en- 
terprise there  shall  be  free  trade,  and  in  such  another  there 
shall  be  none. — Liberty,  February  2,  1889. 

The  allopathic  physicians  of  Massachusetts,  having  worked 
in  vain  for  several  years  to  obtain  a  legal  monopoly  of  the 
practice  of  medicine,  have  concluded  that  a  sure  half  loaf  is 
better  than  a  steadily  diminishing  slice,  and  so  have  gone  into 


i66 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


partnership  with  one  or  two  factions  of  the  "  quacks "  to 
prevent  all  other  "  quacks  "  from  following  tl\eir  profession. 
This  year  the  allopaths  have  taken  the  homoeopaths  and  ec- 
lectics into  the  ring,  and  by  this  political  manoeuvre  they  hope 
to  secure  the  valuable  privilege  which  they  are  aiming  at,  on 
the  plea  which  privileged  classes  always  make, — that  of  pro- 
tecting the  masses.  The  battle  is  being  stubbornly  fought  at 
the  State  House,  and  at  a  recent  hearing  before  the  judiciary 
committee  Geo.  M.  Stearns  of  Chicopee,  who  appeared  for 
the  "  quacks,"  made  one  of  the  wittiest,  keenest,  and  most  un- 
compromising speeches  in  favor  of  absolute  liberty  in  medi- 
cine that  ever  fell  from  a  lawyer's  lips.'  It  is  a  pity  that  some 
of  his  clients  who  followed  him  were  not  equally  consistent. 
For  instance,  Dr.  J.  Rhodes  Buchanan,  who  is  a  sort  of  quack- 
in-chief,  in  the  course  of  a  long  argument  made  to  convince 
the  committee  of  the  right  of  the  patient  to  choose  his  own 
doctor,  declared  that  he  would  favor  a  bill  which  would  make 
.treatment  of  cancer  with  a  knife  malpractice  The  old  story 
again.  In  medicine  as  in  theology  orthodoxy  is  my  doxy 
and  heterodoxy  is  your  doxy.  This  "  quack,"  who  is  so  out- 
raged because  the  "  regulars  "  propose  to  suppress  him,  clearly 
enough  aches  for  a  dictator's  power  that  he  may  abolish  the 
regulars.  He  reminds  one  of  those  Secularists  whose  indig- 
nation at  being  compelled  to  pay  taxes  for  the  support  of 
churches  in  which  they  do  not  believe  is  only  equalled  by  the 
delight  which  they  take  in  compelling  church-members  to  pay 
taxes  for  the  support  of  schools  to  which  they  are  opposed. 
And  yet  there  are  good  friends  of  Liberty  who  insist  that  I,  in 
condemning  these  people,  show  an  inability  to  distinguish  be- 
tween friends  and  foes.  The  truth  is  that,  unlike  these  criti- 
cal comrades,  I  am  not  to  be  blinded  to  the  distinction  between 
friends  and  foes  by  a  mere  similarity  of  shibboleth. — Liberty, 
February  23,  1889. 

While  justly  censuring  the  centralized  authority  which  is  the 
essence  of  the  scheme  upon  which  the  Topolobampo  colony 
is  founded,  the  Chicago  Unity  says  nevertheless  that,  since 
we  are  privileged  to  stay  away,  "  Mr.  Owen's  plan  is  in  this 
respect  a  great  improvement  on  Nationalism,  or  other  forms  of 
State  Socialism,  which  would  oblige  all  citizens,  though  directly 
in  opposition  to  their  own  convictions  and  wishes,  to  submit 
to  the  new  despotism."  This  is  very  true  ;  but  I  wonder  if 
Unity  realizes  that  among  these  "  other  forms  of  State  So- 
cialism "  which  oblige  all  citizens  to  submit  to  their  despot- 
ism in  opposition  to  the  citizens'  wishes,  and  to  which  there- 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE.  167 


fore  Mr.  Owen's  plan,  hideous  as  it  is,  is  in  this  respect  supe- 
rior, is  properly  to  be  classed  the  existing  United  States  gov- 
ernment.— Liberty,  May  16,  1891. 

The  original  patent  of  the  Bell  Telephone  Company  expires 
in  March,  1893.  "  From  personal  tests  in  Boston,"  says  an  ex- 
pert in  this  matter,  "  I  know  they  have  practical  instruments 
that  are  one  hundred  per  cent,  better  than  those  in  use  now. 
They  are  keeping  these  instruments  in  reserve  to  meet  the 
competition  of  the  future.  The  Western  Union  Telegraph 
Company  is  doing  the  same  thing."  A  paper  called  the  Canal 
Dispatch,  commenting  on  this,  indignantly  complains  that 
"  some  of  the  glorious  and  useful  instruments  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  are  lying  under  lock  and  key  as  the  fruit  of 
'  free  competition.'  "  This  indignation  is  righteous,  but  mis- 
directed. It  is  not  free  competition  that  is  keeping  these  im- 
provements locked  up,  but  that  form  of  monopoly  known  as 
property  in  ideas.  As  the  expert  points  out,  as  soon  as  the 
patent  expires  and  competition  arrives,  the  improvements  will 
be  brought  to  light. — Liberty,  May  16,  1891. 

In  an  article  justifying  the  prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic, 
the  Atlantic  (Iowa)  Investigator  says  :  "  According  to  the 
Anarchistic  theory,  the  government  has  no  right  to  prohibit 
anything,  but  only  has  the  right  to  interfere  where  a  wrong  has 
been  done,  and  then  only  to  make  the  wrong-doer  repair  dam- 
ages." I  know  not  the  source  whence  the  Investigator  derived 
this  notion  of  Anarchism,  but  it  is  certainly  a  mistaken  one. 
As  to  government,  Anarchism  holds  that  it  has  no  business  to 
do  anything  whatsoever  or  even  to  exist  ;  but  voluntary  defen- 
sive associations  acting  on  the  Anarchistic  principle  would 
not  only  demand  redress  for,  but  would  prohibit,  all  clearly 
invasive  acts.  They  would  not,  however,  prohibit  non-invasive 
acts,  even  though  these  acts  create  additional  opportunity  for 
invasive  persons  to  act  invasively.  For  instance,  they  would 
not  prevent  the  buying  and  selling  of  liquor,  even  though  it  be 
true  that  some  people  are  invasive  when  under  the  influence 
of  liquor.  The  Investigator  has  failed  to  grasp  the  Anar- 
chistic view.  It  makes  the  dividing  line  of  Anarchism  run 
between  prohibition  of  injury  and  compulsory  redress,  whereas 
Anarchism  really  includes  both.  Its  dividing  line  runs  in  an 
entirely  different  direction,  and  separates  invasion  from  non- 
invasion.  Let  the  Investigator  trv  again. — Liberty,  May  30, 
1891. 


i68 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


The  editor  of  the  Arena  longs  for  the  "  era  of  woman  " 
because,  when  it  arrives,  States  being  woman-governed  instead 
of  man-governed,  the  "  age  of  consent  "  will  be  placed  at 
eighteen  years.  Pointing  to  the  example  set  in  this  respect 
by  Kansas  and  Wyoming,  the  States  which  come  nearest  to 
being  woman-governed,  he  says  in  rebuking  italics  :  "  All the 
other  States  trail  the  banner  of  morality  in  the  dust  before  the  dic- 
tates of  man's  bestiality."  Mr.  Flower  supposes  himself  to  be  an 
individualist,  and  sometimes  writes  in  favor  of  individualism 
in  a  way  that  commands  my  admiration.  But  I  am  curious 
to  know  by  what  rule  he  applies  the  theory  of  individualism, 
that  he  can  bring  himself  to  violate  and  deny  the  individual- 
ity of  the  girl  who  wrote  "  The  Story  of  an  African  Farm," 
by  favoring  a  law  which  would  send  to  prison  for  twenty 
years,  as  guilty  of  rape,  any  man  with  whom  she  might  have 
freely  chosen,  at  the  age  when  she  began  to  write  that  book, 
to  enter  into  sexual  relations.  Had  Olive  Schreiner  lived  in 
civilized  Wyoming  instead  of  semi-barbarous  South  Africa, 
and  had  she  chosen  to  practise  the  theories  which  she  favors 
in  her  book,  she  would  indeed  have  been  raped  ;  not  however 
by  the  lover  of  her  choice,  but  by  the  women  who  deny  her 
the  right  of  choice,  and  by  the  men  like  B.  O.  Flower,  who 
glory  in  this  denial ;  raped,  not  of  virginity,  that  paltry, 
tawdry,  and  overrated  gewgaw,  but  of  liberty,  that  priceless, 
matchless  jewel,  which  it  is  becoming  fashionable  to  despise. 
— Liberty,  August  i,  1891. 

For  one  I  shall  shed  no  tears  if  the  New  York  law  forbid- 
ding the  publication  of  accounts  of  executions  is  rigorously 
enforced  and  its  violators  severely  punished.  Much  as  I 
value  the  liberty  of  the  press,  yes,  because  I  value  it,  I  should 
like  to  see  the  knife  of  authority  buried  to  the  hilt  in  the  ten- 
derest  part  of  the  ordinarily  truckling  newspapers  of  New 
York  and  then  turned  vigorously  and  mercilessly  round.  Per- 
haps, after  that,  Comstock  laws,  anti-lottery  laws,  and  other 
similar  legal  villainies  would  no  longer  be  made  possible  by 
the  subservient  hypocrites  who  cry  out  against  oppressions 
only  when  victimized  themselves.  For  some  time  past  the 
New  York  Sun  has  been  violating  law  with  boasting  and  defi- 
ance, and  yet,  because  in  Tennessee  a  forcible  attempt  has 
been  made  to  prevent  the  employment  of  convicts  in  the 
mines,  and  because  in  Kansas  an  Alliance  judge  has  disobeyed 
the  decree  of  the  supreme  court,  it  solemnly  declares  that  to 
disregard  law  "  is  resistance  to  the  will  of  the  people,  except 
in  the  case  of  an  unconstitutional  statute,  which  is  really  no 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE.  169 


law  at  all."  The  exception  here  entered  by  the  Sun  to  save 
its  own  skin  does  not  avail  for  that  purpose.  Who  is  to  decide 
whether  a  statute  is  unconstitutional  ?  The  supreme  court, 
the  Sun  will  answer.  But  is  the  Sun  prepared,  in  case  the 
supreme  court  declares  the  law  regarding  executions  constitu- 
tional, to  condemn  its  own  course  in  violating  the  law  ?  I 
think  not.  But  then  it  must  allow  to  the  Tennessee  laborers 
and  the  Kansas  judge  the  same  liberty  that  it  claims- for  itself. 
If  the  "  higher  law  "  doctrine  is  good  for  anything,  it  is  good, 
not  only  against  legislatures,  but  against  supreme  courts.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  it  is  good  for  nothing,'  the  Sim  should  take 
its  own  advice  to  other  law-breakers,  and,  instead  of  violating 
the  law  regarding  executions,  should  go  to  the  ballot-box  and 
get  it  repealed.  But  the  Sun  will  not  be  thus  heedful  of  con- 
sistency. That  jewel  is  not  prized  by  hogs.  The  Sun  is  a  hog, 
an  organ  of  hogs,  an  apologist  for  hogs  ;  and  I  shall  not  grieve 
to  see  it  butchered  like  a  hog. — Liberty,  August  i,  1891. 

The  Seattle  Post- Intelligencer  has  a  very  clever  man  on  its 
editorial  staff.  His  editorials  are  far  above  the  ordinary  literary 
level  of  the  journalist,  are  often  sensible,  and  always  show  a 
decided  inclination  to  serious  consideration  of  the  subjects  with 
which  they  deal,  and  to  independent  and  original  thought. 
But  occasionally  his  originality  carries  him  too  far.  Witness 
the  following  original  discovery,  which  he  gave  to  the  world 
unpatented  in  a  recent  editorial  against  woman  suffrage:  "  No- 
body who  is  not  an  Anarchist  in  theory,  if  not  in  practice,  ever 
pretended  that  suffrage  was  a  natural  'right  ;  but  from  the 
Anarchist  point  of  view  that  suffrage  is  a  natural  right,  you 
can  just  as  easily  argue,  as  Anarchists  do,  that  '  property  is  rob- 
bery.'" If  this  editor  had  ever  investigated  Anarchism,  of 
course  he  would  know  that  most  Anarchists  do  not  believe  in 
natural  rights  at  all  ;  that  not  one  of  them  considers  suffrage 
a  natural  right  ;  that,  on  the  other  hand,  they  all  agree  on  the 
central  proposition  that  rule  is  evil,  and  on  the  corollary  that 
it  is  none  the  better  for  being  majority  rule.  Anarchism  is  as 
hostile  to  the  ballot  as  peace  is  to  gunpowder. — Liberty,  August 
29,  1891. 

I  wonder  if  the  people  of  Massachusetts  know  that  their 
law-makers  made  a  law  this  year  punishing  with  imprisonment 
for  life  every  criminal  or  pauper  who  has  the  syphilis.  Such 
is  the  astounding  fact.  To  be  more  specific,  the  law  provides 
that  any  inmate  of  a  State  penal  or  charitable  institution  who, 
at  the  expiration  of  his  term  of  imprisonment,  shall  be  afflicted 


i70 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


with  syphilis  shall  not  be  discharged,  but  shall  be  detained  in 
the  institution  until  cured.  As  syphilis  is  seldom  cured,  this 
means  in  most  cases  life-imprisonment.  Hereafter,  in  Massa- 
chusetts, only  the  rich  and  the  law-abiding  are  to  be  allowed 
to  have  the  syphilis  and  liberty  too. — Liberty,  August  29,  1891. 

A  certain  class  of  litterateurs  are  raising  their  voices  against 
the  "  degradation  of  literature  "  which  they  see  in  the  adver- 
tisement by  the  newspapers  of  "  Mr.  Howells's  $10,000  novel." 
The  question  occurs  to  me  :  if  literature  suffers  no  degrada- 
tion from  Mr.  Howells's  receipt  of  $10,000  for  the  right  to  pub- 
lish his  novel  serially,  how  can  it  be  injured  by  the  announce- 
ment of  the  fact  ?  That  the  whole  business  is  degrading  to 
literature  I  have  no  doubt,  but  the  real  source  of  the  degra- 
dation is  the  State-created  monopoly  which  enables  Mr.  How- 
ells  to  put  such  a  price  upon  his  work.  And  yet  in  the  eyes 
of  these  offended  litterateurs  it  is  this  monopoly  that  uplifts 
literature.  It  is  creditable  to  their  instincts,  though  not  to 
their  reason,  that,  having  obtained  for  literature  "  the  proud 
reward  to  which  it  is  entitled,"  they  are  ashamed  to  let  the 
public  know  the  amount  of  this  reward. — Liberty,  November  7, 
1891. 

There  has  been  a  law  on  the  Pennsylvania  statute  books 
since  1885  prohibiting  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  butterine. 
Under  the  decisions  of  the  United  States  courts,  however,  pro- 
ducers outside  the  State  are  able  to  ship  their  goods  into  the 
State  and  sell  them  in  the  original  packages.  An  increasing 
number  of  dealers  buy  these  packages,  open  them,  and  retail 
from  them  in  violation  of  the  law.  So  prevalent  has  this 
practice  become  that  the  Pennsylvania  butchers,  who  used  to 
sell  their  fats  to  the  butterine  factories,  and  now  have  to  sell 
them  in  Holland  much  less  advantageously,  are  taking  advan- 
tage of  it  to  prosecute  the  guilty  parties  in  the  hope  of  secur- 
ing a  repeal  of  the  obnoxious  law.  Meanwhile  the  dear  and 
protected  people,  instead  of  eating  sweet  and  wholesome  but- 
terine, are  forced  to  eat  strong  butter,  for  which  they  pay  a 
monopoly  price  to  the  protected  farmers  and  dairymen.  The 
people  are  protected  in  the  right  to  be  robbed,  and  the 
farmers  and  dairymen  in  the  right  to  rob.  All  these  protec- 
tions should  be  wiped  out.  The  only  protection  which  honest 
people  need  is  protection  against  that  vast  Society  for  the 
Creation  of  Theft  which  is  euphemistically  designated  as  the 
State. — Liberty,  May  14,  1892. 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,   SOCIETY,   AND   THE  STATE.  I  7 1 


Talk  about  bloodthirsty  Anarchists  !  Listen  to  this.  It  is 
the  editor  of  the  American  Architect  who  speaks.  "So  far 
as  principle  goes,  we  would  like  to  see  any  interference  with 
the  employment  of  a  man  willing  to  work,  any  request  or  de- 
mand— direct  or  indirect — for  the  discharge  of  a  faithful  work- 
man, or  any  attempt  at  coercion  of  a  workman,  by  threats  of 
any  sort,  to  leave  his  work,  punishable  with  death."  Here 
we  have  Archism  in  full  flower.  If  John  Smith  politely  asks 
Jim  Jones  to  discharge  or  not  to  employ  industrious  and  faith- 
ful Sam  Robinson,  kill  him.  Such  is  capitalism's  counsel  to 
the  courts.  If  it  should  be  acted  upon,  I  hold  that  the  people 
would  have  better  cause  to  charge  the  Architect  editor  with 
conspiracy  to  murder,  find  him  guilty,  and  dynamite  him, 
than  had  the  State  of  Illinois  >to  find  a  similar  verdict  against 
Spies  and  his  comrades  and  hang  them.  I  wonder  if  the 
Architect  editor  would  be  willing  to  see  his  principle  carried 
out  impartially.  Fancy,  for  instance,  the  electrocution  of 
Col.  Eliot  F.  Shepard  for  blacklisting  an  industrious  and 
faithful  Fifth  Avenue  stage-driver  on  account  of  his  use  of 
profane  language  and  asking  the  superintendents  of  horse-car 
lines  not  to  employ  him.  If  incendiary  counsel  shall  bring  on 
a  bloody  revolution,  the  chief  sin  thereof  will  lie  upon  the 
capitalists  and  their  hired  advocates,  and  bitterly  will  they  pay 
the  penalty.  In  these  modern  days  there  are  many  Foulons, 
some  of  whom  may  yet  eat  grass. — Liberty,  May  22,  1892. 

In  the  State  of  New  York  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  com- 
mit suicide  is  punishable  as  a  crime.  It  is  proposed  that  Anar- 
chists of  foreign  birth  shall  not  be  allowed  to  become  citizens. 
Attorney-General  Miller  wishes  suffrage  to  be  made  compul- 
sory by  the  disfranchisement  of  all  who  neglect  to  use  the 
ballot.  The  New  York  Health  Inspectors,  when  on  a  fruit- 
condemning  expedition  the  other  day,  after  seizing  a  push-cart 
full  of  green  peaches  turned  it  over  to  two  messenger-boys,  in 
consequence  of  which  some  fifty  urchins  had  a  feast  and  pos- 
sibly several  funerals.  A  government  that  gives  away  the 
germs  of  disease  which  it  will  not  allow  others  to  sell  ;  a  gov- 
ernment that  insists  on  disfranchising  people  who  will  not  vote; 
a  government  that  refuses  to  naturalize  people  who  refuse  to 
be  naturalized  ;  a  government  that  refuses  life  to  people  who 
refuse  to  live, — well,  for  a  good  farce  such  a  government  is 
certainly  a  good  farce. — Liberty,  August  13,  1892. 

Another  monopoly  is  threatened.  At  present,  as  is  well 
known,  Wagner's  "  Parsifal  "  can  be  performed  only  at  Bay- 


172 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


reuth.  This  music-drama  is  Madame  Wagner's  property,  and 
she  refuses  to  allow  any  one  else  to  produce  it.  But  in  Aus- 
tria, it  seems,  every  copyrighted  work  becomes  free  ten  years 
after  the  author's  death.  Next  year,  therefore,  "  Parsifal  "  can 
be  performed  in  Austria  by  any  one  who  chooses.  Madame 
Wagner  is  moving  heaven  and  earth  to  secure  the  passage  of  a 
new  law  in  Austria  in  the  interest  of  her  monopoly,  and  it  is 
said  that  she  may  succeed.  If  she  does,  then  Austrians,  like 
Frenchmen,  Englishmen,  Americans,  and  the  people  of  all 
other  nations  who  have  chosen  to  make  slaves  of  themselves, 
must  continue  to  pay  tribute,  not  only  to  Madame  Wagner, 
but  to  hotel-keepers  and  railroad  corporations,  if  they  desire 
to  witness  a  representation  of  the  greatest  achievement  in 
musical  composition  yet  attained.  This  situation  illustrates 
another  absurdity  of  property  in  ideas,  to  which  attention  has 
never  been  called  in  these  columns.  As  long  as  Madame  Wagner 
is  allowed  to  retain  her  monopoly, — and  really  if  it  is  rightfully 
her  property,  it  ought  never  to  be  taken  from  her, — the  price 
which  a  man  must  pay  to  see  "  Parsifal "  is  proportionate  to 
the  distance  between  his  residence  and  Bayreuth.  The  citi- 
zen of  Bayreuth  pays  but  five  dollars  for  the  privilege  which 
must  cost  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  from  two  to  four 
hundred  dollars.  And  this  because  of  one  woman's  will  and 
the  rest  of  the  world's  lack  of  will.  It  may  be  replied,  of 
course,  that  the  same  situation  exists  regarding  many  works  of 
art  and  nature,  and  cannot  be  avoided, — for  instance,  a  paint- 
ing by  Titian  or  the  falls  of  Niagara.  This  is  unfortunately 
true  ;  but  the  only  good  reason  for  putting  up  with  such  a 
state  of  things  is  that  we  cannot  help  ourselves.  We  pay  heav- 
ily to  see  Niagara  Falls  because  we  cannot  reproduce  Niagara 
Falls  within  walking  distance  of  our  homes.  But  is  the  fact 
that  we  must  pay  more  for  things  we  cannot  duplicate  a  good 
reason  for  paying  more  for  things  that  can  be  duplicated  ? — 
Liberty,  September  24,  1892. 

The  recent  strike  at  Carmaux,  France,  was  followed  by  an 
agitation  for  compulsory  arbitration  of  disputes  between  capi- 
tal and  labor.  There  was  a  lively  fight  over  it  in  the  French 
Chamber,  which  fortunately  had  the  good  sense  to  vote  the 
measure  down.  Of  all  the  demands  made  upon  government 
in  the  interest  of  labor  this  is  perhaps  the  most  foolish.  I 
wonder  if  it  has  ever  occurred  to  the  laborers  who  make  it 
that  to  grant  their  desire  would  be  to  deny  that  cherished 
right  to  strike  upon  which  they  have"  insisted  so  strenuously 
;md  for  so  many  years.    Suppose,  for  instance,  a  body  of  oper- 


THE  INDIVIDUAL,  SOCIETY.   AND   THE  STATE.  1 73 


atives  decide  to  strike  in  defence  of  an  interest  which  they 
deem  vital  and  to  maintain  which  they  are  prepared  and  de- 
termined to  struggle  to  the  end.  Immediately  comes  along 
the  board  of  arbitration,  which  compels  strikers  and  employ- 
ers to  present  their  case  and  then  renders  a  decision.  Suppose 
the  decision  is  adverse  to  the  strikers.  They  are  bound  to  ac- 
cept it,  the  arbitration  being  compulsory,  or  suffer  the  penalty, 
— for  there  is  no  law  without  a  penalty.  What  then  has  be- 
come of  their  right  to  strike  ?  It  has  been  destroyed.  They 
can  ask  for  what  they  want ;  a  higher  power  immediately  de- 
cides whether  they  can  have  it  ;  and  from  this  decision  there 
is  no  appeal.  Labor  thus  would  be  prohibited  by  law  from 
struggling  for  its  rights.  And  yet  labor  is  so  short-sighted 
that  it  asks  for  this  very  prohibition  ! — Liberty,  November  19, 
1892. 


MONEY  AND  INTEREST, 


"WHO  IS  THE  SOMEBODY  ?'J 


[Liberty,  August  6,  1881.] 

"  Somebody  gets  the  surplus  wealth  that  labor  produces  and 
does  not  consume.  Who  is  the  Somebody  ? "  Such  is  the 
problem  recently  posited  in  the  editorial  columns  of  the  New 
York  Truth.  Substantially  the  same  question  has  been  asked 
a  great  many  times  before,  but,  as  might  have  been  expected, 
this  new  form  of  putting  it  has  created  no  small  hubbub. 
Truth's  columns  are  full  of  it  ;  other  journals  are  taking  it  up  ; 
clubs  are  organizing  to  discuss  it  ;  the  people  are  thinking 
about  it  ;  students  are  pondering  over  it.  For  it  is  a  most  mo- 
mentous question.  A  correct  answer  to  it  is  unquestionably  the 
first  step  in  the  settlement  of  the  appalling  problems  of  pov- 
erty, intemperance,  ignorance,  and  crime.  Truth,  in  selecting 
it  as  a  subject  on  which  to  harp  and  hammer  from  day  to  day, 
shows  itself  a  level-headed,  far-sighted  newspaper.  But,  im- 
portant as  it  is,  it  is  by  no  means  a  difficult  question  to  one 
who  really  considers  it  before  giving  an  answer,  though  the 
variety  and  absurdity  of  nearly  all  the  replies  thus  far  volun- 
teered certainly  tend  to  give  an  opposite  impression. 

What  are  the  ways  by  which  men  gain  possession  of  prop- 
erty ?  Not  many.  Let  us  name  them:  work,  gift,  discovery, 
gaming,  the  various  forms  of  illegal  robbery  by  force  or  fraud, 
usury.  Can  men  obtain  wealth  by  any  other  than  one  or 
more  of  these  methods  ?  Clearly,  no.  Whoever  the  Somebody 
may  be,  then,  he  must  accumulate  his  riches  in  one  of  these 
ways.    We  will  find  him  by  the  process  of  elimination. 

Is  the  Somebody  the  laborer  ?  No  ;  at  least  not  as  laborer  ; 
otherwise  the  question  were  absurd.  Its  premises  exclude 
him.  He  gains  a  bare  subsistence  by  his  work  ;  no  more. 
We  are  searching  for  his  surplus  product.    He  has  it  not. 

Is  the  Somebody  the  beggar,  the  invalid,  the  cripple,  the 
discoverer,  the  gambler,  the  highway  robber,  the  burglar,  the 
defaulter,  the  pickpocket,  or  the  common  swindler  ?  None 
of  these,  to  any  extent  worth  mentioning.  The  aggregate  of 
wealth  absorbed  by  these  classes  of  our  population  compared 

*77 


178 


INSTEAD  OF  A  DOOK. 


with  the  vast  mass  produced  is  a  mere  drop  in  the  ocean, 
unworthy  of  consideration  in  studying  a  fundamental  problem 
of  political  economy.  These  people  get  some  wealth,  it  is 
true  ;  enough,  probably,  for  their  own  purposes:  but  labor  can 
spare  them  the  whole  of  it,  and  never  know  the  difference. 

Then  we  have  found  him.  Only  the  usurer  remaining,  he 
must  be  the  Somebody  whom  we  are  looking  for;  he,  and  none 
other.  But  who  is  the  usurer,  and  whence  comes  his  power  ? 
There  are  three  forms  of  usury  :  interest  on  money,  rent  of 
land  and  houses,  and  profit  in  exchange.  Whoever  is  in 
receipt  of  any  of  these  is  a  usurer.  And  who  is  not  ?  Scarcely 
any  one.  The  banker  is  a  usurer  ;  the  manufacturer  is  a 
usurer;  the  merchant  is  a  usurer;  the  landlord  is  a  usurer;  and 
the  workingman  who  puts  his  savings,  if  he  has  any,  out  at 
interest,  or  takes  rent  for  his  house  or  lot,  if  he  owns  one,  or 
exchanges  his  labor  for  more  than  an  equivalent, — he  too  is  a 
usurer.  The  sin  of  usury  is  one  under  which  all  are  concluded; 
and  for  which  all  are  responsible.  But  all  do  not  benefit  by 
it.  The  vast  majority  suffer.  Only  the  chief  usurers  accumu- 
late: in  agricultural  and  thickly-settled  countries,  the  landlords; 
in  industrial  and  commercial  countries,  the  bankers.  Those 
are  the  Somebodies  who  swallow  up  the  surplus  wealth. 

And  where  do  the  Somebodies  get  their  power  ?  From 
monopoly.  Here,  as  usual,  the  State  is  the  chief  of  sinners. 
Usury  rests  on  two  great  monopolies, — the  monopoly  .of  land 
and  the  monopoly  of  credit.  Were  it  not  for  these,  it  would 
disappear.  Ground-rent  exists  only  because  the  State  stands 
by  to  collect  it  and  to  protect  land-titles  rooted  in  force  or 
fraud.  Otherwise  the  land  would  be  free  to  all,  and  no  one 
could  control  more  than  he  used.  Interest  and  house-rent 
exist  only  because  the  State  grants  to  a  certain  class  of 
individuals  and  corporations  the  exclusive  privilege  of  using 
its  credit  and  theirs  as  a  basis  for  the  issuance  of  circulating 
currency.  Otherwise  credit  would  be  free  to  all,  and  money, 
brought  under  the  law  of  competition,  would  be  issued  at 
cost.  Interest  and  rent  gone,  competition  would  leave  little 
or  no  chance  for  profit  in  exchange  except  in  business 
protected  by  tariff  or  patent  laws.  And  there  again  the  State 
has  but  to  step  aside  to  cause  the  last  vestige  of  usury  to 
disappear. 

The  usurer  is  the  Somebody,  and  the  State  is  his  protector. 
Usury  is  the  serpent  gnawing  at  labor's  vitals,  and  only 
liberty  can  detach  and  kill  it.  Give  laborers  their  liberty,  and 
they  will  keep  their  wealth.  As  for  the  Somebody,  he,  stripped 
of  his  power  to  steal,  must  either  join  their  ranks  or  starve. 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


'79 


REFORM  MADE  RIDICULOUS. 

[Liberty,  September  17,  1881.] 

One  of  the  most  noteworthy  of  Thomas  Jefferson's  sayings 
was  that  he  "  had  rather  live  under  newspapers  without  a 
government  than  under  a  government  without  newspapers." 
The  Czar  of  Russia  proposes  to  make  this  alternative  unneces- 
sary by  establishing  a  national  weekly  journal  to  be  distributed 
gratuitously  in  every  village,  whose  carefully-concocted  news 
paragraphs,  severely-sifted  political  items,  and  rose-tinted  ed- 
itorials shall  be  read  aloud  on  Sundays  by  designated  offi- 
cials to  the  assembled  multitudes.  This  absurd  proposal  is 
no  more  absurd  than  that  of  a  delegate  to  the  State  Conven- 
tion of  the  Massachusetts  Greenbackers,  who  desired  that  the 
government  should  add  to  its  functions  that  of  the  collection 
of  news  to  be  furnished  gratuitously  to  the  daily  journals. 
And  this  again  is  no  more  absurd  than  some  of  the  proposals 
actually  endorsed  by  a  majority  of  the  delegates  to  the  same 
convention,  nearly  all  of  whose  measures  and  methods,  in 
fact,  are  quite  of  a  piece  with  those  of  the  aforesaid  Czar. 

For  instance,  one  of  the  resolutions  adopted  (and  we  grieve 
to  say  that  it  was  introduced  by  no  less  a  person  than  our 
excellent  and  earnest  friend,  J.  M.  L.  Babcock  of  Cambridge) 
asks  the  legislature  to  compel  all  corporations  to  distribute  their 
profits  in  excess  of  six  per  cent,  among  their  employees  in  the 
proportion  of  the  scale  of  wages.  Saying  nothing  of  the  fact 
that  this  resolution  seriously  offends  liberty  by  denying  that 
the  equitable  distribution  of  property  which  the  labor  move- 
ment seeks  must  result,  not  from  legislative  enactment,  but 
from  the  free  play  of  natural  laws,  it  also  offends  equity  by 
admitting  that  capital  is  entitled  to  a  portion  of  labor's 
product,  and  that  the  producer  is  entitled  to  exact  a  profit 
from  the  consumer  !  Yet  we  are  told  that  only  one  man  in 
that  whole  convention  had  the  brains  and  the  courage  to  rise 
from  his  seat  and  proclaim  the  great  truth  that,  if  labor  can 
claim  anything,  it  can  and  should  claim  all.  What  wonder 
that  this  half-hearted,  half-headed  Greenback  party  excites 
among  intelligent  people  no  sentiment  higher  than  that  of  a 
pity  akin  to  contempt  !  Mr.  Babcock's  resolution  would  take 
the  labor  movement  off  of  its  basis  of  right,  and  degen- 
erate it  into  an  unprincipled  scramble  for  spoils  by  which  the 
strongest  would  profit.  Take  the  half -loaf  who  will  ;  we  shall 
never  cease  to  reiterate  that  the  whole  loaf  rightfully  belongs 


i8o 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


to  those  who  raise  the  wheat  from  the  soil,  grind  it  into  flour, 
and  bake  it  into  bread,- and  not  the  smallest  taste  of  it  to  the 
sharpers  who  deceive  the  unthinking  masses  into  granting 
them  a  monopoly  of  the  opportunities  of  performing  these 
industrial  operations,  which  opportunities  they  in  return  rent 
back  to  the  people  on  condition  of  receiving  the  other  half  of 
the  loaf. 


A   DEFENCE   OF  CAPITAL. 

{Liberty,  October  i,  1881.] 

My  dear  Mr.  Tucker  : 

Why  do  you  "  grieve  "  at  a  difference  of  opinion  between  us  ?  Am  I 
to  be  bribed  to  agree  with  a  valued  friend  by  the  fear  that  he  will  grieve 
if  I  do  not?  Liberty,  I  should  say,  imposes  no  such  burden  on  freedom 
of  thought,  but  rather  rejoices  in  its  fullest  exercise. 

I  did  not  know  that  the  "no-profit"  theory  had  become  so  well  es- 
tablished, or  so  generally  accepted,  as  to  render  ridiculous  any  proposi- 
tion not  based  upon  it. 

Yet  that  is  the  only  point  I  understand  you  to  urge  against  the  measure 
I  proposed.  But  I  never  could  see  that  labor,  in  its  unequal  struggle  for 
its  rights,  gained  anything  by  extravagant  claims.  Whatever  contributes 
to  production  is  entitled  to  an  equitable  share  in  the  distribution.  In  the 
production  of  a  loaf  of  bread  (the  example  which  you  set  forth  in  a  magnif- 
icent paragraph),  the  plough  performs  an  important,  if  not  indispensable 
service,  and  equitably  comes  in  for  a  share  of  the  loaf.  Is  that  share  to  be 
a  slice  which  compensates  only  for  the  wear  and  tear?  It  seems  to  me 
that  it  should  be  slightly  thicker,  even  if  no  more  than  "the  ninth  part  of 
a  hair."  For  suppose  one  man  spends  his  life  in  making  ploughs  to  be 
used  by  others  who  sow  and  harvest  wheat.  If  he  furnishes  his  ploughs 
only  on  condition  that  they  be  returned  to  him  in  as  good  state  as  when 
taken  away,  how  is  he  to  get  his  bread?  Labor,  empty-handed,  proposes 
to  raise  wheat ;  but  it  can  do  nothing  without  a  plough,  and  asks  the 
loan  of  one  from  the  man  who  made  it.  If  this  man  receives  nothing  more 
than  his  plough  again,  he  receives  nothing  for  the  product  of  his  own  labor, 
and  is  on  the  way  to  starvation.  What  proportion  he  ought  to  receive  is 
another  question,  on  which  I  do  not  enter  here  ;  it  may  be  ever  so  small, 
but  it  should  be  something. 

Capital,  we  will  agree,  has  hitherto  had  the  lion's  share  ;  why  condemn 
a  measure  which  simply  proposes  to  restore  to  labor  a  portion  at  least  of 
what  it  is  entitled  to  ? 

I  say  nothing  on  the  theory  of  "  natural  laws,"  because  I  understood 
you  to  suggest  that  point  only  to  waive  it. 

Cordially  yours, 

J.  M.  L.  Babcock.* 


*  It  should  be  stated  that  a  few  years  after  the  date  of  this  discussion 
Mr.  Babcock  abandoned  the  position  here  taken,  became  a  thorough- 
going opponent  of  interest,  and  has  remained  such  ever  since. 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


"THE  POSITION  OF  WILLIAM." 

[From  Ruskin's  Letters  to  British  Workmen  ] 

What  you  call  "  wages,"  practically,  is  the  quantity  of  food  which  the 
possessor  of  the  land  gives  you  to  work  for  him.  There  is,  finally,  no 
"  capital  "  but  that.  If  all  the  money  of  all  the  capitalists  in  the  whole 
world  were  destroyed — the  notes  and  bills  burnt,  the  gold  irrecoverably 
buried,  and  all  the  machines  and  apparatus  of  manufactures  crushed, 
by  a  mistake  in  signals,  in  one  catastrophe — and  nothing  remained  but 
the  land,  with  its  animals  and  vegetables,  and  buildings  for  shelter — the 
poorer  population  would  be  very  little  worse  off  than  they  are  at  this  in- 
stant ;  and  their  labor,  instead  of  being  "limited"  by  the  destruction, 
would  be  greatly  stimulated.  They  would  feed  themselves  from  the 
animals  and  growing  crop  ;  heap  here  and  there  a  few  tons  of  ironstone 
together,  build  rough  walls  round  them  to  get  a  blast,  and  in  a  fortnight 
they  would  have  iron  tools  again,  and  be  ploughing  and  fighting,  just 
as  usual.  It  is  only  we  who  had  the  capital  who  would  suffer  ;  we 
should  not  be  able  to  live  idle,  as  we  do  now,  and  many  of  us — 1,  for  in- 
stance— should  starve  at  once  ;  but  you,  though  little  the  worse,  would 
none  of  you  be  the  better  eventually  for  our  loss — or  starvation.  The 
removal  of  superfluous  mouths  would  indeed  benefit  you  somewhat  for 
a  time  ;  but  you  would  soon  replace  them  with  hungrier  ones  ;  and  there 
are  many  of  us  who  are  quite  worth  our  meat  to  you  in  different  ways, 
which  I  will  explain  in  due  place  ;  also  I  will  show  you  that  our  money 
is  really  likely  to  be  useful  to  you  in  its  accumulated  form  (besides  that, 
in  the  instances  when  it  has  been  won  by  work,  it  justly  belongs  to  us), 
so  only  that  you  are  careful  never  to  let  us  persuade  you  into  borrowing 
it  and  paying  us  interest  for  it.  You  will  find  a  very  amusing  story,  ex- 
plaining your  position  in  that  case,  at  the  one  hundred  and  seventeenth 
page  of  the  "Manual  of  Political  Economy,"  published  this  year  at 
Cambridge,  for  your  early  instruction,  in  an  almost  devotionally  cate- 
chetical form,  by  Messrs.  Macmillan. 

Perhaps  I  had  better  quote  it  to  you  entire  ;  it  is  taken  by  the  author 
"  from  the  French." 

"  There  was  once  in  a  village  a  poor  carpenter  who  worked  hard  from 
morning  till  night.  One  day  James  thought  to  himself,  'With  my  hatchet, 
saw,  and  hammer  I  can  only  make  coarse  furniture,  and  can  only  get  the 
pay  for  such.  If  I  had  a  plane,  I  should  please  my  customers  more,  and 
they  would  pay  me  more.  Yes,  I  am  resolved  I  will  make  myself  a 
plane.'  At  the  end  of  ten  days  James  had  in  his  possession  an  admir- 
able plane  which  he  valued  all  the  more  for  having  made  it  himself. 
Whilst  he  was  reckoning  all  the  profits  which  he  expected  to  derive  from 
the  use  of  it,  he  was  interrupted  by  William,  a  carpenter  in  the  neighbor- 
ing village.  William,  having  admired  the  plane,  was  struck  with  the 
advantages  which  might  be  gained  from  it.    He  said  to  James  : 

"  1  You  must  do  me  a  service;  lend  me  the  plane  for  a  year.'  As  might 
be  expected,  James  cried  out,  '  How  can  you  think  of  such  a  thing,  Will- 
iam? Well,  if  I  do  you  this  service,  what  will  you  do  for  me  in  return?' 

"  W.  '  Nothing.    Don't  you  know  that  a  loan  ought  to  be  gratuitous  ?  ' 


I  82 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


"J.  'I  know  nothing  of  the  sort  ;  but  I  do  know  that  if  I  were  to 
lend  you  my  plane  for  a  year,  it  would  be  giving  it  to  you.  To  tell  you 
the  truth,  that  was  not  what  I  made  it  for.' 

"  W.  *  Very  well,  then  ;  I  ask  you  to  do  me  a  service;  what  service  do 
you  ask  me  in  return  ?  ' 

"J.  'First,  then,  in  a  year  the  plane  will  be  done  for.  You  must 
therefore  give  me  another  exactly  like  it.' 

"  IV.  '  That  is  perfectly  just.  I  submit  to  these  conditions.  I  think 
you  must  be  satisfied  with  this,  and  can  require  nothing  further.' 

"J.  '  I  think  otherwise.  I  made  the  plane  for  myself,  and  not  for  you. 
I  expected  to  gain  some  advantage  from  it.  I  have  made  the  plane  for 
the  purpose  of  improving  my  work  and  my  condition  ;  if  you  merely 
return  it  to  me  in  a  year,  it  is  you  who  will  gain  the  profit  of  it,  during 
the  whole  of  that  time.  I  am  not  bound  to  do  you  such  a  service  with- 
out receiving  anything  in  return.  Therefore,  if  you  wish  for  my  plane 
besides  the  restoration  already  bargained  for,  you  must  give  me  a  new 
plank  as  a  compensation  for  the  advantages  of  which  I  shall  be  deprived.' 

"These  terms  were  agreed  to,  but  the  singular  part  of  it  is  that  at  the 
end  of  the  year,  when  the  plane  came  into  James's  possession,  he  lent  it 
again  ;  recovered  it,  and  lent  it  a  third  and  fourth  time.  It  has  passed 
into  the  hands  of  his  son,  who  still  lends  it.  Let  us  examine  this  little 
story.  The  plane  is  the  symbol  of  all  capital,  and  the  plank  is  the  sym- 
bol of  all  interest." 

If  this  be  an  abridgment,  what  a  graceful  piece  of  highly-wrought  liter- 
ature the  original  story  must  be  !  I  take  the  liberty  of  abridging  it  a 
little  more. 

James  makes  a  plane,  lends  it  to  William  on  ist  of  January  for  a  year. 
William  gives  him  a  plank  for  the  loan  of  it,  wears  it  out,  and  makes 
another  for  James,  which  he  gives  him  on  31st  December.  On  ist  Jan- 
uary he  again  borrows  the  new  one  ;  and  the  arrangement  is  repeated 
continuously.  The  position  of  William  therefore  is  that  he  makes  a 
plane  every  31st  of  December,  lends  it  to  James  till  the  next  day,  and 
pays  James  a  plank  annually  for  the  privilege  of  lending  it  to  him  on  that 
evening.  This,  in  future  investigations  of  capital  and  interest,  we  will 
call,  if  you  please,  "  The  Position  of  William." 

You  may  not  at  the  first  glance  see  where  the  fallacy  lies  (the  writer 
of  the  story  evidently  counts  on  your  not  seeing  it  at  all). 

If  James  did  not  lend  the  plane  to  William,  he  could  o^ly  get  his  gain 
of  a  plank  by  working  with  it  himself  and  wearing  it  out  himself.  When 
he  had  worn  it  out  at  the  end  of  the  year,  he  would,  therefore,  have  to 
make  another  for  himself.  William,  working  with  it  instead,  gets  the 
advantage  instead,  which  he  must,  therefore,  pay  James  his  plank  for; 
and  return  to  James  what  James  would,  if  he  had  not  lent  his  plane, 
then  have  had — not  a  new  plane,  but  the  worn-out  one.  James  must 
make  a  new  one  for  himself,  as  he  would  have  had  to  do  if  no  William 
had  existed  ;  and  if  William  likes  to  borrow  it  again  for  another  plank, 
all  is  fair. 

That  is  to  say,  clearing  the  story  of  its  nonsense,  that  James  makes  a 
plane  annually  and  sells  it  to  William  for  its  proper  price,  which,  in 
kind,  is  a  new  plank.  But  this  arrangement  has  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  principal  or  with  interest.  There  are,  indeed,  many  very  subtle 
conditions  involved  in  any  sale  ;  one  among  which  is  the  value  of  ideas; 
I  will  explain  that  value  to  you  in  the  course  of  time  (the  article  is  not 
one  which  modern  political  economists  have  any  familiarity  with  deal- 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


183 


ings  in),  and  I  will  tell  you  somewhat  also  of  the  real  nature  of  inter- 
est ;  but  if  you  will  only  get  for  the  present  a  quite  clear  idea  of  "  The 
Position  of  William,"  it  is  all  I  want  of  you. 


CAPITAL'S  CLAIM  TO  INCREASE. 

[Liderty,  October  1,  1881.] 

Liberty's  strictures,  in  her  last  issue,  upon  the  proposal  of 
the  Massachusetts  Greenbackers,  adopted  at  their  Worcester 
convention,  to  ask  the  legislature  to  compel  all  corporations 
to  distribute  their  profits  in  excess  of  six  per  cent,  among  the 
employees  in  proportion  to  their  wages  has  stirred  up  Mr. 
J.  M.  L.  Babcock,  the  author  of  that  singular  project,  to  a  de- 
fence of  it.  And  in  defending  it  against  Liberty,  he  is  obliged 
to  do  so  in  behalf  of  capital.  It  seems  a  little  odd  to  find  this 
long-time  defender  of  the  rights  of  labor  in  the  role  of  cham- 
pion of  the  claims  of  capital  ;  but  we  remember  that  he  is  one 
who  follows  the  lead  of  justice  as  he  sees  it,  take  him  where  it 
may. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  main  question,  he  gives  us  two 
minor  points  to  settle.  First,  he  very  pertinently  asks  why  we 
"  grieve  "  at  his  course.  We  answer  by  taking  it  all  back.  As 
he  says,  Liberty  should  rejoice,  rather  than  grieve,  at  the  honest 
exercise  of  the  right  to  differ.  WThen  we  hastily  said  other- 
wise, we  said  a  very  foolish  thing.  Yes,  worse  than  that  ;  in 
so  far  we  were  false  to  our  own  standard.  Mr.  Babcock  has 
Liberty's  sincerest  thanks  for  recalling  her  to  her  own  position. 
May  he  and  all  never  fail  to  sharply  prod  us,  whenever  they 
similarly  catch  us  napping  !  * 

Second,  he  assumes  that  the  profit  idea  cannot  be  ridiculous 
(as  we  pronounced  it),  since  its  converse  is  not  well  established 
or  generally  accepted.  To  say  that  the  no-profit  theory  is 
not  well  established  is  to  beg  the  principal  question  under 
discussion  ;  to  say  that,  because  the  theory  is  not  generally 
accepted,  the  few  friends  that  it  has  are  not  entitled  to  ridi- 


*  Reading  this  paragraph  eleven  years  later,  I  am  inclined  to  regret 
that  I  wrote  it.  So  few  are  the  manifestations  of  good  nature  in  my  po- 
lemical writings,  that  I  can  ill  afford  to  disown  any  of  them;  but  it  really 
seems  that  on  this  occasion  I  tried  a  little  too  hard  to  be  fair.  The 
grief  for  which  I  thus  apologized  was  over  the  fact  that  Mr.  Babcock 
held  an  opinion  in  favor  of  injustice, — not  over  the  fact  that,  holding  such 
an  opinion,  he  gave  expression  to  it. 


INSTEAD  OF   A  ROOK. 


cule  the  position  of  its  enemies  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
nature  of  ideas  or  the  custom  of  Mr.  Babcock.  How  often 
have  we  listened  with  delight  to  his  sarcastic  dissection  and 
merciless  exposure  to  the  light  of  common  sense  of  some 
popular  and  well-nigh  universal  delusion  in  religion,  politics, 
finance,  or  social  life  !  He  is  in  the  habit  of  holding  ridicu- 
lous all  those  things,  whoever  supports  them,  which  his  own 
reason  pronounces  absurd.  And  he  is  right  in  doing  so,  and 
wrong  in  saying  that  we  ought  not  to  follow  his  example.  So, 
while  it  is  clear  that  on  the  first  minor  point  Mr.  Babcock  has 
the  better  of  Liberty,  on  the  second  Liberty  as  decidedly  has 
the  better  of  Mr.  Babcock. 

Now  to  the  question  proper.  Labor,  says  our  friend,  never 
gains  anything  by  extravagant  claims.  True  ;  and  no  claim 
is  extravagant  that  does  not  exceed  justice.  But  it  is  equally 
true  that  labor  always  loses  by  foolish  concessions  ;  and  in 
this  industrial  struggle  every  concession  is  foolish  that  falls 
short  of  justice.  It  is  to  be  decided,  then,  not  whether  Liberty's 
claim  for  labor  is  extravagant,  but  whether  it  is  just.  "What- 
ever contributes  to  production  is  entitled  to  an  equitable  share 
in  the  distribution  !  "  Wrong  !  Whoever  contributes  to  produc- 
tion is  alone  so  entitled.  What  has  no  rights  that  Who  is 
bound  to  respect.  What  is  a  thing.  Who  is  a  person.  Things 
have  no  claims  ;  they  exist  only  to  be  claimed.  The  posses- 
sion of  a  right  cannot  be  predicated  of  dead  material,  but 
only  of  a  living  person.  "  In  the  production  of  a  loaf  of  bread, 
the  plough  performs  an  important  service,  and  equitably  comes 
in  for  a  share  of  the  loaf."  Absurd  !  A  plough  cannot  own 
bread,  and,  if  it  could,  would  be  unable  to  eat  it.  A  plough  is 
a  What,  one  of  those  things  above  mentioned,  to  which  no 
rights  are  attributable. 

Oh  !  but  we  see,  "  Suppose  one  man  spends  his  life  in 
making  ploughs  to  be  used  by  others  who  sow  and  harvest 
wheat.  If  he  furnishes  his  ploughs  only  on  condition  that 
they  be  returned  to  him  in  as  good  state  as  when  taken  away, 
how  is  he  to  get  his  bread  ?."  It  is  the  maker  of  the  plough, 
then,  and  not  the  plough  itself,  that  is  entitled  to  a  reward  ? 
What  has  given  place  to  Who.  Well,  we'll  not  quarrel  over 
that.  The  maker  of  the  plough  certainly  is  entitled  to  pay  for 
his  work.  Full  pay,  paid  once  ;  no  more.  That  pay  is  the 
plough  itself, or  its  equivalent  in  other  marketable  products, said 
equivalent  being  measured  by  the  amount  of  labor  employed 
in  their  production.  But  if  he  lends  his  plough  and  gets  only 
his  plough  back,  how  is  he  to  get  his  bread  ?  asks  Mr.  Babcock, 
much  concerned.    Ask  us  an  easy  one,  if  you  please.   We  give 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


185 


this  one  up.  But  why  should  he  lend  his  plough  ?  Why  does 
he  not  sell  it  to  the  farmer,  and  use  the  proceeds  to  buy  bread 
of  the  baker  ?  See,  Mr.  Babcock  ?  If  the  lender  of  the  plough 
"  receives  nothing  more  than  his  plough  again,  he  receives  noth- 
ing for  the  product  of  his  own  labor,  and  is  on  the  way  to 
starvation."  Well,  if  the  fool  will  not  sell  his  plough,  let  him 
starve.  Who  cares  ?  It's  his  own  fault.  How  can  he  expect 
to  receive  anything  for  the  product  of  his  own  labor  if  he 
refuses  to  permanently  part  with  it  ?  Does  Mr.  Babcock  pro- 
pose to  steadily  add  to  this  product  at  the  expense  of  some 
laborer,  and  meanwhile  allow  this  idler,  who  has  only  made  a 
plough,  to  loaf  on  in  luxury,  for  the  balance  of  his  life,  on  the 
strength  of  his  one  achievement  ?  Certainly  not,  when  our 
friend  understands  himself.  And  then  he  will  say  with  us 
that  the  slice  of  bread  which  the  plough-lender  should  receive 
can  be  neither  large  nor  small,  but  must  be  nothing. 

To  that  end  we  commend  to  Mr.  Babcock  the  words  of 
his  own  •  candidate  for  Secretary  of  State,  nominated  at  the 
Worcester  convention,  A.  B.  Brown,  editor  of  The  Republic, 
who  says  :  "  The  laborers  of  the  world,  instead  of  having  only 
a  small  fraction  of  the  wealth  in  the  world,  should  have  all 
the  wealth.  To  effect  this  all  monopolies  should  be  termina- 
ted,— whether  they  be  monopolies  of  single  individuals  or 
'  majorities,' — and  labor-cost  must  be  recognized  as  the  measure 
and  limit  of  price."  If  Mr.  Brown  sticks  to  these  words,  and 
the  Greenbackers  to  their  platform,  there  is  going  to  be  a 
collision,  and  Mr.  Brown  will  keep  the  track.  But  lest  Mr. 
Brown's  authority  should  not  prove  sufficient,  we  refer  Mr. 
Babcock  further  to  one  of  his  favorite  authors,  John  Ruskin, 
who  argues  this  very  point  on  Mr.  Babcock's  own  ground, 
except  that  he  illustrates  his  position  by  a  plane  instead  of  a 
plough.  Mr.  Babcock  may  find  his  words  under  the  heading, 
1  The  Position  of  William,"  immediately  following  his  own 
letter  to  us.  If  he  succeeds  in  showing  Mr.  Brown's  assertions 
to  be  baseless  and  Mr.  Ruskin's  arguments  to  be  illogical,  he 
may  then  come  to  Liberty  for  other  foes  to  conquer.  Till 
then  we  shall  be  but  an  interested  spectator  of  his  contest. 


1 86  INSTEAD  OF  A  LOUK. 


A  BASELESS  CHARGE. 

{Liberty,  October  15,  1881.J 

My  dear  Mr.  Tucker  : 

It  is  entirely  immaterial  in  this  discussion  whether  my  position  is 
"odd  "or  otherwise.  The  question  at  issue  must  be  settled,  if  settled 
at  all,  on  its  own  merits  ;  and  no  prejudice  either  for  or  against  capital 
can  affect  the  argument.    Let  us  burden  it  with  no  irrelevant  matter. 

My  question  was  simply  this  :  Is  a  man  who  loans  a  plough  entitled  in 
equity  to  compensation  for  its  use  ;  and  if  not,  why  not? 

This  question  (I  say  it  with  all  respect)  you  evade.  But,  until  it  is 
answered,  no  progress  can  be  made  in  this  inquiry,  It  is  no  answer  to 
say,  "  Let  him  sell  his  plough."  He  does  not  sell  it  ;  he  loans  it,  as  he 
has  a  natural  right  to  do.  Another  borrows  it,  as  he  has  a  natural  right 
to  do.     I  repeat :  Is  it  just  to  pay  for  its  use  ? 

You  gain  nothing  when  you  say,  "Let  him  sell";  for,  if  I  followed 
you  there,  it  would  only  be  to  present  the  same  question  substantially  in 
another  form.  You  might  then  suggest  another  alternative,  until  we 
•'  swung  round  the  circle,"  and  came  back  to  the  first.  So  let  us  save 
time  and  meet  it  at  once.  If  it  cannot  be  met  where  I  proposed  it,  I  do 
not  see  that  it  can  be  answered  anywhere.  If  your  theory  will  not  bear 
an  application  to  the  example  I  stated,  what  is  it  good  for  ?  I  have  never 
seen  a  good  reason  why  the  plough-maker  is  not  entitled  to  pay  for  the 
use  of  his  plough. 

You  refer  me  to  certain  "  authorities,"— Brown  and  Ruskin.  I  do  not 
bow  to  authorities  on  questions  of  this  nature  ;  and  I  supposed  you  did 
not.  I  ask  for  a  reason,  not  a  name.  Brown's  proposition,  which  I 
affirm  as  stoutly  as  he  does,  does  not  answer  my  question.  Ruskin  is 
equally  remote.  He  concludes  that  the  case  he  examines  is  one  of  sale 
and  purchase.  That  is  not  the  case  I  stated  at  all.  If  there  be  an 
answer  to  my  question,  I  am  sure  you  are  capable  of  stating  it. 

Yours  cordially, 

J.  M.  L.  Babcock. 

We  have  no  wish  to  waste  these  columns  in  repetition  ;  but 
this  charge  of  evasion  is  a  serious  one,  which  can  be  thor- 
oughly examined  only  by  reviewing  ground  already  traversed. 
One  of  the  objects  that  we  had  in  view  in  beginning  the 
publication  of  this  journal  was  the  annihilation  of  usury. 
If  in  our  first  direct  conflict  with  a  supporter  of  usury  we  have 
been  guilty  of  evasion,  we  are  unfitted  for  our  task,  and  ought 
to  abandon  it  to  hands  more  competent.  But  we  unhesitatingly 
plead  "  not  guilty." 

Mr.  Babcock  argued  that  the  man  who  makes  a  plough  and 
lends  it  is  entitled  to  a  portion  of  the  loaf  subsequently  pro- 
duced in  addition  to  the  return  of  his  plough  intact.  He  now 
asserts  that  we  answered  this  by  saying,  "  Let  him  sell  his 
plough."  No,  we  did  not.  On  the  principle  that  only  labor  can 


MONEY    AND  INTEREST. 


l87 


be  an  equitable  basis  of  price,  we  argued  in  reply  as  follows: 
"  The  maker  of  the  plough  certainly  is  entitled  to  pay  for  his 
work.  Full  pay,  paid  once  ;  no  more.  That  pay  is  the  plough 
itself,  or  its  equivalent  in  other  marketable  products,  said 
equivalent  being  measured  by  the  amount  of  labor  employed 
in  their  production."  True  or  false,  this  answer  is  direct  and 
tangible  ;  in  no  sense  is  it  evasive.  Then  Mr.  Babcock  asked 
this  other  and  distinct  question:  "  If  he  furnishes  his  ploughs 
only  on  condition  that  they  be  returned  to  him  in  as  good 
state  as  when  taken  away,  how  is  he  to  get  his  bread  ? "  We 
replied  that  we  did  not  know,  and  that,  if  he  was  such  a  fool 
as  to  do  so,  we  did  not  care.  Nothing  evasive  here,  either  ; 
on  the  contrary,  utter  frankness.  Touched  a  little,  however, 
by  Mr.  Babcock's  sympathy  with  the  usurer  thus  threatened 
with  starvation,  we  ventured  the  suggestion  that,  instead  of 
lending  his  plough  to  the  farmer,  he  might  sell  it  to  him,  and 
thus  get  money  wherewith  to  buy  bread  of  the  baker.  This 
advice  was  gratuitous,  we  know  ;  possibly  it  was  impertinent, 
also  ;  but  was  it  evasive  ?    Not  in  the  least. 

Finally,  thinking  that  Mr.  Babcock  might  agree,  as  we  do, 
with  Novalis  that  a  man's  belief  gains  quite  infinitely  the  mo- 
ment another  mind  is  convinced  thereof,  we  called  his  atten- 
tion to  two  other  minds  in  harmony  with  ours  on  the  point 
now  in  dispute,  A.  B.  Brown  and  John  Ruskin.  But  not  as 
authorities,  in  Mr.  Babcock's  sense  of  the  word.  Still,  Mr. 
Brown  being  Mr.  Babcock's  candidate  for  Secretary  of  State, 
and  party  candidates  being  supposedly  represe?itative  in  things 
fundamental,  we  deemed  it  not  out  of  place  to  cite  a  proposi- 
tion from  Mr.  Brown  that  seemed  to  us,  on  its  face,  directly 
contradictory  of  Mr.  Babcock.  To  our  astonishment  Mr.  Bab- 
cock accepts  it  as  not  inconsistent  with  his  position,  at  the 
same  time  declaring  it  irrelevant.  Argument  ends  here.  If 
we  hold  up  two  objects,  one  of  which,  to  our  eyes,  is  red  and 
the  other  blue,  and  Mr.  Babcock  declares  that  both  are  red, 
it  is  useless  to  discuss  the  matter.  One  of  us  is  color-blind. 
The  ultimate  verdict  of  mankind  will  decide  which.  In  quot- 
ing from  Mr.  Ruskin,  however,  we  did  not  ask  Mr.  Babcock  to 
accept  him  as  authority,  but  to  point  out  the  weakness  of  an 
argument  drawn  from  an  illustration  similar  to  Mr.  Babcock's. 
Mr.  Babcock  replies  by  denying  the  similarity,  saying  that 
Ruskin  "  concludes  that  the  case  he  examines  is  one  of  sale 
and  purchase."  Let  us  see.  Ruskin  is  examining  a  story  told 
by  Bastiat  in  illustration  and  defence  of  usury.  After  printing 
Bastiat's  version  of  it,  he  abridges  it  thus,  stripping  away  all 
mystifying  clauses: 


i88 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


James  makes  a  plane,  lends  it  to  William  on  ist  of  January  for  a  year. 
William  gives  him  a  plank  for  the  loan  of  it,  wears  it  out,  and  makes 
another  for  James,  which  he  gives  him  on  31st  December.  On  ist 
January  he  again  borrows  the  new  one  ;  and  the  arrangement  is  repeated 
continuously.  The  position  of  William,  therefore,  is  that  he  makes  a 
plane  every  31st  of  December  ;  lends  it  to  James  till  the  next  day,  and 
pays  James  a  plank  annually  for  the  privilege  of  lending  it  to  him  on 
that  evening. 

Substitute  in  the  foregoing  "  plough  "  for  "  plane,"  and 
"  loaf"  or  "  slice  "  for  "  plank,"  and  the  story  differs  in  no 
essential  point  from  Mr.  Babcock's.  How  monstrously  unjust 
the  transaction  is  can  be  plainly  seen.  Ruskin  next  shows  how 
this  unjust  transaction  may  be  changed  into  a  just  one  : 

If  James  did  not  lend  the  plane  to  William,  he  could  only  get  his  gain 
of  a  plank  by  working  with  it  himself  and  wearing  it  out  himself.  When 
he  had  worn  it  out  at  the  end  of  the  year,  he  would,  therefore,  have  to 
make  another  for  himself.  William,  working  with  it  instead,  gets  the 
advantage  instead,  which  he  must,  therefore,  pay  James  his  plank  for; 
and  return  to  James  what  James  would,  if  he  had  not  lent  his  plane, 
then  have  had — not  a  new  plane,  but  the  worn-out  one.  James  must 
make  a  new  one  for  himself,  as  he  would  have  had  to  do  if  no  William 
had  existed  ;  and  if  William  likes  to  borrow  it  again  for  another  plank,  all 
is  fair.  That  is  to  say,  clearing  the  story  of  its  nonsense,  that  James 
makes  a  plane  annually  and  sells  it  to  William  for  its  proper  price, 
which,  in  kind,  is  a  new  plank. 

It  is  this  latter  transaction,  wholly  different  from  the  former, 
that  Ruskin  pronounces  a  "  sale,"  having  "  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  principal  or  with  interest."  And  yet,  according  to 
Mr.  Babcock,  "  the  case  he  examines  [Bastiat's,  of  course]  is 
one  of  sale  and  purchase."  We  understand  now  how  it  is  that 
Mr.  Babcock  can  charge  us  with  evasion.  He  evidently  con- 
ceives his  method  of  meeting  a  point  to  be  straightforward.  If 
it  be  so,  certainly  ours  is  evasive.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  our 
course  has  been  straightforward,  evasion  is  too  mild  a  term  for 
his.  It  is  better  described  as  flat  misstatement  ;  purely  care- 
less, of  course,  but  scarcely  less  excusable  than  if  wilful. 
Again  we  invite  our  friend  to  a  careful  examination  (and 
refutation,  if  possible)  of  the  arguments  advanced. 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST.  189 


ANOTHER  ANSWER  TO  MR.  BABCOCK. 

{Liberty,  November  12,  1881.] 

.]/;-.   Tucker  : 

In  your  issue  of  October  15,  I  notice  a  question  by  J.  M.  L.  Babcock, 
and,  although  you  have  answered  it,  yet  I  beg  to  give  my  answer.  The 
question  is  this  :  "  Is  a  man  who  loans  a  plough  entitled  in  equity  to 
compensation  for  its  use  ?"  My  answer  is,  "  Yes."  Now,  then,  what  of 
it?  Does  that  make  something  for  nothing  right?  Let  us  see.  We 
must  take  it  for  granted  that  the  loaning  of  the  plough  was  a  good  business 
transaction.  Such  being  the  case,  the  man  who  borrows  the  plough  must 
give  good  security  that  he  will  return  the  plough  and  pay  for  what  he  wears 
out.  He  must  have  the  wealth  or  the  credit  to  make  the  owner  of  the 
plough  whole  in  case  he  should  break  or  lose  the  plough.  Now,  I  claim 
that  this  man,  having  the  wealth  or  credit  to  secure  a  borrowed  plough, 
could  transmute  that  same  credit  or  security  into  money,  without  cost, 
and  with  the  money  buy  a  plough,  were  it  not  for  a  monopoly  of  money. 
For  a  monopoly  of  money  implies  a  monopoly  of  everything  that  money 
will  buy. 

If  the  people  should  give  to  landholders,  as  a  right,  what  they  now 
give  to  bondholders  as  a  special  privilege — why,  you  might  loan  ploughs 
for  a  price,  but  the  price  would  not  include  a  money  cost,  as  is  inevitable 
under  our  present  monetary  system. 

Let  us  remember  that  an  individual  transaction  under  a  system  of  mo- 
nopoly does  not  represent  nor  illustrate  the  truth  as  it  would  be  under  a 
natural  or  just  system.  Again,  superficial  ideas  do  not  always  harmo- 
nize with  the  central  truth. 

Briefly,  but  truly  yours, 

Apex. 


ATTENTION,  "APEX!" 

[Liberty,  November  26,  18S1.] 

My  dear  Mr.  Tucker: 

Allow  me  just  to  say  that  "  Apex  "  is  in  error  in  supposing  he  has  an- 
swered my  question.  It  appears  by  his  own  comment  that  his  "Yes" 
means  that  the  plough-lender  is  entitled  to  pay  for  the  wear  and  tear  of 
the  plough.  I  asked  :  Is  he  entitled  to  pay  for  its  use  ?  I  marvel  that  he 
should  overlook  the  distinction,  for  I  had  been  careful  to  mark  it  in 
my  first  statement.  When  the  question  as  I  put  it  is  answered  in  the 
affirmative,  I  shall  be  ready  to  answer  the  other,  "What  of  it?"  But  I 
am  still  left  to  the  mournful  impression  that  my  question  is  not  answered. 

Yours  cordially, 

J.  M.  L.  Babcock. 


190 


INSTEAD  OF  A  EOOK, 


USURY. 

[Liberty,  November  26,  1881.] 

Paying  money  for  the  use  of  money  is  a  great  and  barbarous  wrong.  It 
is  also  a  stupendous  absurdity.  No  one  man  can  use  money.  The  use 
of  money  involves  its  transfer  from  one  to  another.  Therefore,  as  no  one 
man  can  use  money,  it  cannot  be  right  and  proper  for  any  man  to  pay  for 
the  use  of  that  which  he  cannot  use.  The  people  do  use  money  ;  conse- 
quently, they  should  pay  whatever  the  money  may  cost. 

Money  is  necessarily  a  thing  which  belongs  to  society.  This  is  one  of 
the  great  truths  of  civilization  which  has  been  generally  overlooked.  For 
this  whole  question  of  the  rightfulness  of  interest  turns  on  the  question, 
"What  is  money?"  So  long  as  the  people  shall  continue  to  consider 
money  as  a  thing  of  itself  objectively — why,  there  is  no  hope  for  humanity. 

All  wealth  is  the  product  of  labor,  but  no  labor  can  produce  money. 
There  can  be  no  money  until  some  wealth  has  been  produced,  because 
money  is  a  representative  of  wealth. 

Money  is  a  form  of  credit — credit  in  circulation.  It  is  not  a  thing  of 
substance.  The  great  object  of  money  is  to  exchange  values.  Now,  value 
is  an  idea,  and  money  is  used  to  represent,  count,  and  exchange  values. 
The  symbol  or  token  of  money  is  not  the  money  itself.  Therefore,  as 
money  is  not  a  thing  of  substance,  and  cannot  wear  out,  it  is  and  ever 
must  be  a  great  wrong  and  an  utter  absurdity  to  give  wealth  for  the  use  of 
an  idea. 

In  equity  compensation  implies  service  or  labor,  and  as  money  does  not 
cost  labor,  why,  labor  cannot  justly  be  demanded  for  its  use. 

But  let  us  look  at  it  practically.  The  people  use  money  ;  the  people 
furnish  the  money  ;  and,  if  the  cost  of  issue  is  paid,  there  can  be  no  other 
expense.  The  great  difficulty  touching  this  whole  matter  is  a  barbarous 
misconception  of  the  nature  of  money  and  a  more  barbarous  disposition 
to  monopolize  power  and  rob  the  weak.  For — let  us  ask — who  pays  the 
great  tax  of  interest?  Not  those  who  have  and  handle  the  money  ;  not 
those  who  use  the  money  ;  but  the  poor,  the  weak,  the  ignorant,  the  dupes 
of  the  ruling  class.  We  can  illustrate  this  by  a  fact  of  to-day.  If  five  or 
more  men  having  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  and  no  more,  organize 
and  establish  a  national  bank,  just  so  soon  as  their  bank  is  in  operation 
they  have  the  use  and  income  of  one  hundred  and  ninety  thousand  dollars. 
Now,  is  it  not  clear  that,  this  company  having  got  ninety  thousand  dollars 
for  nothing,  somebody  has  lost  that  amount?  For,  if  one  man  gets  a 
-dollar  that  he  has  not  earned,  some  other  man  has  earned  a  dollar  that  he 
has  not  got.    That  is  as  certain  as  that  two  and  two  make  four. 

If  all  men  could  use  their  own  credit  in  the  form  of  money,  there  could 
be  no  such  thing  as  interest.  Yet,  to  put  this  idea  into  practice,  there 
must  be  organization  and  consolidation  of  credit.  Commercial  credit,  to 
be  good,  must  be  known  to  be  good.  A  man's  credit  may  be  good  to  the 
extent  of  a  thousand  dollars,  but,  that  fact  not  being  generally  known,  he 
must,  as  things  are,  exchange  his  credit  for  that  which  is  known  to  be 
good,  and  pay  a  monopoly  price  for  the  privilege  of  using  his  own  credit 
in  the  form  of  money. 

Let  us  remember  that  no  man  can  borrow  money,  as  a  good  business 
transaction,  under  any  system,  unless  he  has  the  requjred  security  to  make 
the  lender  whole  in  case  he  should  lose  the  money.    Wrhat  a  stupendous 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


wrong  is  this — that  a  man  having  credit  cannot  use  it,  but  must  exchange 
it  and  pay  a  monopoly  price,  which  is  really  for  the  privilege  of  using  his 
own  credit! 

And  again,  he  cannot  pay  this  himself,  but  must  compel  the  poor  man 
to  work  out  this  tax  ;  the  latter  must  pay  this  interest  in  the  enhanced 
price  of  goods.  I  wonder  if  the  people  will  always  be  thus  blind  and 
stupid  ! 

So  long  as  business  men,  as  such,  and  laborers  shall  continue  to  per- 
mit the  few  shrewd  moneyed  men  to  monopolize  commercial  credit — 
that  is,  money — just  so  long  will  it  be  hard  times  for  business  and 
labor.  What  we  want  now  is  the  organization  of  credit  on  a  just  and 
equal  plan.  William  B.  Greene  solved  this  whole  matter  and  summed 
it  up  in  two  words  :  "  Mutual  Banking."    That  is  what  we  want. 

Apex. 


APEX  OR  BASIS. 

[Liberty,  December  10,  1881.] 

"  Apex  "  says  that  it  is  a  barbarism  to  pay  interest  on  money.  That  is 
another  way  of  saying  that  a  state  of  society  in  which  wealth  is  not 
universalized  is  barbarous,  since,  in  our  present  stage  of  evolution, 
those  who  have  no  capital  of  their  own  will  be  glad  to  borrow  from 
those  who  have,  and  to  pay  interest  for  the  use  of  the  capital. 

For  it  is  really  capital  that  is  borrowed,  and  not  .  money,  the  latter 
being  only  the  means  for  obtaining  the  former,  as  money  would  be 
worthless  if  it  could  not  be  exchanged  for  the  capital  needed.  We  see 
already  that,  as  the  loanable  capital  of  a  country  increases,  the  rate  of 
interest  diminishes,  and  when  the  accumulated  wealth  of  the  world  be- 
comes large  enough  no  one  will  pay  interest. 

But  to  denounce  the  payment  of  interest  to-day,  and  (if  it  could  be 
done)  to  forbid  the  man  of  ability,  but  lacking  means,  borrowing  the 
capital  he  needs,  or,  in  other  words,  using  his  credit,  would  not  tend  to 
universalize  wealth  and  so  destroy  usury  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
would  discourage  the  production  and  accumulation  of  capital,  since  one 
of  the  principal  incentives  to  that  production  is  the  use  of  capital  to  in- 
crease production  and  add  to  one's  wealth.  It  is  obvious  that,  unless 
the  use  of  capital  added  to  the  productiveness  of  labor,  no  one  would 
wish  to  borrow,  and  no  usury  could  be  had.  It  should  not  be  forgotten, 
in  considering  this  question,  that,  «in  the  last  analysis,  reducing  things  to 
their  simplest,  individualized  form,  the  possessor  of  capital  has  acquired  it 
by  a  willingness  to  work  harder  than  his  fellows  and  to  sacrifice  his  love 
of  spending  all  he  produces  that  he  may  have  the  aid  of  capital  to 
increase  his  power  of  production.  For  example,  two  men  work  side  by 
side  ;  one  consumes  all  he  produces,  the  other  saves  part  of  his  product. 
In  time  the  latter  has  saved  enough  to  enable  him  to  build  or  buy  a  tool 
by  the  aid  of  which  he  accomplishes  four  times  as  much  work  as  before, 
and  is  able  to  go  on  adding  to  his  accumulation.  The  one  who  has  not 
saved,  seeing  the  advantage  of  the  use  of  capital,  naturally  desires  to 
obtain  the  same  benefit  for  himself  ;  but,  not  liking  t<?  save  and  wait  until 
he  can  create  capital,  he  proposes  to  borrow  a  portion  of  the  capital  of 


192 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


the  other.  By  means  of  this  borrowed  capital  he  can  quadruple  h's 
product,  and  is  very  willing  to  give  a  part  of  his  increased  product  to 
the  neighbor  who  has  befriended  him.  Would  he  not  be  a  mean  sneak 
if  he  were  not  glad  to  do  so  ?  By  the  use  of  the  borrowed  capital  he  is 
not  only  enabled  to  pay  for  the  advantage  gained,  but,  by  his  greater 
power  to  produce,  he  can,  in  a  short  time,  buy  his  own  tools  and  no 
longer  be  forced  to  borrow. 

Although  our  present  system  of  business  is  vastly  complicated,  and 
we  sometimes  seem  to  borrow  money  merely,  the  actual  transaction  being 
kept  out  of  sight,  yet  the  case  supposed  is  the  real  basis  of  all  just  pay- 
ment of  interest.  I  believe  there  will  be  a  state  of  society  in  which 
money  will  not  be  necessary,  but  that  state  cannot  be  built  up  by  com- 
mencing at  the  top.  We  must  build  from  the  foundation,  understanding 
things  as  they  are  as  well  as  knowing  how  they  ought  to  be. 

The  question  is  asked — and  it  is  a  very  important  one,  and,  simple  as 
it  is  at  bottom,  a  complex  one  as  it  stands — What  is  money?  It  would 
simplify  this  matter  very  much  if  all  would  agree  to  call  coin,  or  money 
having  value  as  merchandise,  money,  and  paper,  or  representative 
money,  currency,  or  notes.  It  is  plain  that  the  representative  money  is 
that  which  must  be  and  is  principally  used  in  this  country  and  in  all  com- 
mercial countries.  Coin  money  derives  its  real  value  in  exchange,  and 
as  a  measure  for  the  exchangeable  value  of  other  products,  from  the 
fact  that  it  costs  labor  to  produce  it  ;  and,  although  government  laws 
may  foolishly  try  to  make  it  pass  for  more  than  its  cost  value,  they 
never  succeed  in  doing  so.  No  government  ever  has  succeeded  in  over- 
riding natural  law,  though  they  may  and  often  do  obstruct  the  operations 
of  Nature's  laws  to  the  great  detriment  of  Nature's  children. 

The  simplest  form  of  representative  money,  or  currency,  is  fur- 
nished by  Josiah  Warren's  labor  note,  which  was  substantially  as  follows 
(I  quote  from  memory)  : 

For  value  received,  I  promise  to  pay  bearer,  on  demand,  one  hours  labor, 
or  ten  pounds  of  corn. 

Josiah  Warren. 

Modern  Times,  July  4,  1852. 

So  long  as  it  was  believed  by  Jiis  neighbors  that  the  maker  of  such 
notes  always  had  the  corn  on  hand  with  which  to  redeem  them  (since 
their  redemption  in  labor  would  rarely  be  practicable  or  desirable),  they 
would  pass  current  in  that  locality  ;  and,  in  fact,  such  "  labor  notes  " 
did  pass  to  a  limited  extent  at  Modern  Times.  Interesting  as  that  ex- 
periment was,  and  showing  clearly,  as  it  does,  the  principle  at  the  basis 
of  all  good  currency,  it  could  not  be  extended  so  as  to  satisfy  the  needs 
of  a  great  commercial  country,  or,  safely,  of  a  large  neighborhood. 

But  a  currency,  to  be  good,  must  possess  precisely  the  qualifications 
and  qualities  of  that  labor  note,  with  the  addition  of  a  guaranty,  uni- 
versally recognizable,  that  the  notes  actually  do  represent  solid  wealth 
with  which  they  will  be  redeemed  on  demand.  Now,  there  is  one  thing, 
and  only  one,  that  government  can  rightfully  or  usefully  do  in  the  way 
of  interference  with  the  currency,  the  ebb  and  flow  of  which  is  governed 
by  natural  laws  altogether  out  of  the  reach  of  State  or  national  govern- 
ments ;  and  that  is  to  issue  all  the  notes  used  foi  currency  on  such 
terms  that  it  shall  be  universally  known  truly  to  represent  actual,  mov- 
able capital  (not  land,  which  is  not  property  in  the  true  sense,  and  which 
cannot  be  carried  off  by  any  one  wishing  a  note  redeemed),  pledged  for 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


J93 


its  redemption.  There  should  be  no  monopoly,  but  any  and  every  per- 
son complying  with  the  terms  should  be  furnished  with  the  national  note. 
Of  course,  no  one  who  had  not  the  requisite  capital  could  procure  these 
notes,  and  rightly  so,  because  notes  made  by  those  who  have  no  capital 
would  swindle  the  people.  And,  as  our  government  has  no  property  or 
capital,  except  the  necessary  tools  for  carrying  on  the  affairs  of  the 
nation,  and  as  government  should  have  no  debts  and  no  gold  and  silver 
accumulated,  it  is  obvious  that  it  cannot  properly  make  a  good  note  be- 
yond the  amount  which  could  be  redeemed  in  payment  of  taxes.  And, 
as  taxes  ought  to  be  diminished  and  ultimately  abolished,  there  is  no  valid 
basis  for  a  government  note  to  be  used  as  currency.  Neither  will  Mu- 
tual Banks  answer  any  good  purpose  if  the  notes  are  based  on  land. 

Basis.* 

The  remarks  that  follow  are  not  intended  to  debar  "  Apex  " 
from  answering  his  opponent  in  his  own  time  and  way,  but 
simply  to  combat,  from  Liberty  s  standpoint,  such  of  the  posi- 
tions taken  by  "  Basis  "  as  seem  to  need  refutation. 

The  first  error  into  which  "  Basis  "  falls  is  his  identification 
of  money  with  capital.  Representative  money  is  not  capital  ; 
it  is  only  a  title  to  capital.  He  who  borrows  a  paper  dollar 
from  another  simply  borrows  a  title. f  Consequently  he  takes 
from  the  lender  nothing  which  the  lender  wishes  to  use  ;  unless, 
indeed,  the  lender  desires  to  purchase  capital  with  his  dollar, 
in  which  case  he  will  not  lend  it,  or,  if  he  does,  will  charge 
for  the  sacrifice  of  his  opportunity, — a  very  different  thing  from 
usury,  which  is  payment,  not  for  the  lender's  sacrifice,  but 
for  the  borrower's  use;  that  is,  not  for  a  burden  borne,  but  for  a 
benefit  conferred.  Neither  does  the  borrower  of  the  dollar  take 
from  the  person  of  whom  he  purchases  capital  with  it  anything 
which  that  person  desires  to  use  ;  for,  in  ordinary  commerce, 
the  seller  is  either  a  manufacturer  or  a  dealer,  who  produces 
or  buys  his  stock  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  sell  it.  And 
thence  this  dollar  goes  on  transferring  products  for  which  the 
holders  thereof  have  no  use,  until  it  reaches  its  issuer  and 
final  redeemer  and  is  cancelled,  depriving,  in  the  course  of  its 
journey,  no  person  of  any  opportunity,  but,  on  the  contrary, 


*It  is  interesting  to  note  that  "  Basis,"  abandoning  later  the  theory 
of  interest  maintained  by  him  in  the  above  article,  took  the  initiative  in 
the  formation  of  a  society  for  the  abolition  of  interest,  and  now  considers 
such  abolition  essential  to  the  solution  of  the  social  problem. 

f  Nevertheless,  to  everybody  but  the  issuer,  representative  money  is 
capital  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  because  it  will  procure  capital.  But 
to  the  issuer  it  is  not  capital,  because  he  issues  it  against  security  belong- 
ing not  to  himself  but  to  the  borrower,  would  not  be  able  to  issue  it  were 
it  not  for  such  security,  and  therefore  parts  with  nothing  in  issuing  it. 
Now  the  idea  that  money  is  capital  does  not  sjustain  the  position  of 
"  Basis,"  unless  it  be  taken  to  mean  that  money  is  capital  to  the  issuer. 


194 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


serving  the  needs  of  all  through  whose  hands  it  passes.  Hence 
borrowing  a  title  to  capital  is  a  very  different  thing  from 
borrowing  capital  itself.  But  under  the  system  of  organized 
credit  contemplated  by  "  Apex "  no  capable  and  deserving 
person  would  borrow  even  a  title  to  capital.  The  so-called 
borrower  would  simply  so  change  the  face  of  his  own  title  as 
to  make  it  recognizable  by  the  world  at  large,  and  at  no  other 
expense  than  the  mere  cost  of  the  alteration.  That  is  to  say, 
the  man  having  capital  or  good  credit,  who,  under  the  system 
advocated  by  "  Apex,"  should  go  to  a  credit-shop — in  other 
words,  a  bank — and  procure  a  certain  amount  of  its  notes  by 
the  ordinary  processes  of  mortgaging  property  or  getting 
endorsed  commercial  paper  discounted,  would  only  exchange 
his  own  personal  credit — known  only  to  his  immediate  friends 
and  neighbors  and  the  bank,  and  therefore  useless  in  trans- 
actions with  any  other  parties — for  the  bank's  credit,  known 
and  receivable  for  products  delivered  throughout  the  State, 
or  the  nation,  or  perhaps  the  world.  And  for  this  convenience 
the  bank  would  charge  him  only  the  labor-cost  of  its  service 
in  effecting  the  exchange  of  credits,  instead  of  the  ruinous 
rates  of  discount  by  which,  under  the  present  system  of  mo- 
nopoly, privileged  banks  tax  the  producers  of  unprivileged 
property  out  of  house  and  home.  So  that  "  Apex "  really 
would  have  no  borrowing  at  all,  except  in  certain  individual 
cases  not  worth  considering  ;  and,  therefore,  when  "  Basis," 
answering  "Apex,"  says  that  "it  is  really  capital  that  is 
borrowed,  and  not  money,"  he  makes  a  remark  for  which  there 
is  no  audible  call. 

The  second  error  commited  by  "  Basis "  he  commits  in 
common  with  the  economists  in  assuming  that  an  increase  of 
capital  decreases  the  rate  of  interest  and  that  nothing  else  can 
materially  decrease  it.  The  facts  are  just  the  contrary.  The 
rate  of  interest  may,  and  often  does,  decrease  when  the  amount 
of  capital  has  not  increased  ;  the  amount  of  capital  may  in- 
crease without  decreasing  the  rate  of  interest,  which  may  in 
fact  increase  at  the  same  time  ;  and  so  far  from  the  univer- 
salization  of  wealth  being  the  sole  means  of  abolishing  interest, 
the  abolition  of  interest  is  the  sine  qua  nan  of  the  universaliza- 
tion  of  wealth. 

Suppose,  for  instance,  that  the  banking  business  of  a  nation 
is  conducted  by  a  system  of  banks  chartered  and  regulated  by 
the  government,  these  banks  issuing  paper  money  based  on 
specie,  dollar  for  dollar.  If  now  a  certain  number  of  these 
banks,  by  combining  to  buy  up  the  national  legislature,  should 
secure  the  exclusive  privilege  of  issuing  two  paper  dollars  for 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


•95 


each  specie  dollar  in  their  vaults,  could  they  not  afford  to,  and 
would  they  not  in  fact,  materially  reduce  their  rate  of  discount  ? 
Would  not  the  competing  banks  be  forced  to  reduce  their 
rate  in  consequence  ?  And  would  not  this  reduction  lower  the 
rate  of  interest  throughout  the  nation  ?  Undoubtedly;  and  yet 
the  amount  of  capital  in  the  country  remains  the  same  as 
before. 

Suppose,  further,  that  during  the  following  \*ear,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  stimulus  given  to  business  and  production  by 
this  decrease  in  the  rate  of  interest  and  also  because  of 
unusually  favorable  natural  conditions,  a  great  increase  of 
wealth  occurs.  If  then  the  banks  of  the  nation,  holding 
from  the  government  a  monopoly  of  the  power  to  issue  money, 
should  combine  to  contract  the  volume  of  the  currency,  could 
they  not,  and  would  they  not,  raise  the  rate  of  interest  thereby  ? 
Undoubtedly  ;  and  yet  the  amount  of  capital  in  the  country  is 
greater  than  it  ever  was  before. 

But  suppose,  on  the  other  hand,  that  all  these  banks, 
chartered  and  regulated  by  the  government  and  issuing  money 
dollar  for  dollar,  had  finally  been  allowed  to  issue  paper  be- 
yond their  capital  based  on  the  credit  and  guaranteed  capital  of 
their  customers  ;  that  their  circulation,  thus  doubly  secured, 
had  become  so  popular  that  people  preferred  to  pay  their  debts 
in.  coin  instead  of  bank-notes,  thus  causing  coin  to  flow  into 
the  vaults  of  the  banks  and  add  to  their  reserve  ;  that  this 
addition  had  enabled  them  to  add  further  to  their  circulation, 
until,  by  a  continuation  of  the  process,  it  at  last  amounted 
to  eight  times  their  original  capital  ;  that  by  levying  a  high 
rate  of  interest  on  this  they  had  bled  the  people  nigh  unto 
death  ;  that  then  the  government  had  stepped  in  and  said  to 
the  banks:  "  When  you  began,  you  received  an  annual  interest 
of  six  per  cent,  on  your  capital ;  you  now  receive  nearly  that 
rate  on  a  circulation  eight  times  your  capital  based  really  on 
the  people's  credit ;  therefore  at  one-eighth  of  the  original  rate 
your  annual  profit  would  be  as  great  as  formerly  ;  henceforth 
your  rate  of  discount  must  not  exceed  three-fourths  of  one  per 
cent."  Had  all  this  happened  (and  with  the  exception  of  the 
last  condition  of  the  hypothesis  similar  cases  have  frequently 
happened),  what  would  have  been  the  result  ?  Proudhon  shall 
answer  for  us.  In  the  eighth  letter  of  his  immortal  discussion 
with  Bastiat  on  the  question  of  interest  he  exhausts  the  whole 
subject  of  the  relation  of  interest  to  capital ;  and  "  Basis  "  can- 
not do  better  than  read  the  whole  of  it.  A  brief  extract,  how- 
ever, must  suffice  here.  He  is  speaking  of  the  Bank  of  France, 
which  at  that  time  (1849)  was  actually  in  almost  the  same 


io6 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


situation  as  that  described  above.  Supposing,  as  we  have  just 
done  after  him,  a  reduction  of  the  rate  of  discount  to  three- 
fourths  of  one  per  cent.,  he  then  asks,  as  we  do,  what  the 
result  would  be.  These  are  his  words  in  answer  to  Bastiat, 
the  "  Basis"  of  that  discussion  : 

The  fortune  and  destiny  of  the  country  are  to-day  in  the  hands  of  the 
Bank  of  France.  If  it  would  relieve  industry  and  commerce  by  a  de- 
crease of  its  rate  of  discount  proportional  to  the  increase  of  its  reserve  ; 
in  other  words,  if  it  would  reduce  the  price  of  its  credit  to  three-fourths 
of  one  per  cent.,  which  it  must  do  in  order  to  quit  stealing, — this  reduc- 
tion would  instantly  produce,  throughout  the  Republic  and  all  Europe, 
incalculable  results.  They  could  not  be  enumerated  in  a  volume  ;  I  will 
confine  myself  to  the  indication  of  a  few. 

If,  then,  the  credit  of  the  Bank  of  France  should  be  loaned  at  three- 
fourths  of  one  per  cent.,  ordinary  bankers,  notaries,  capitalists,  and  even 
the  stockholders  of  the  bank  itself  would  be  immediately  compelled  by 
competition  to  reduce  their  interest,  discount,  and  dividends  to  at  least 
one  per  cent.,  including  incidental  expenses  and  brokerage.  What  harm, 
think  you,  would  this  reduction  do  to  borrowers  on  personal  credit,  or  to 
commerce  and  industry,  who  are  forced  to  pay,  by  reason  of  this  fact 
alone,  an  annual  tax  of  at  least  two  thousand  millions? 

If  financial  circulation  could  be  effected  at  a  rate  of  discount  represent- 
ing only  the  cost  of  administration,  drafting,  registration,  etc.,  the  inter- 
est charged  on  purchases  and  sales  on  credit  would  fall  in  its  turn  from 
six  per  cent,  to  zero, — that  is  to  say,  business  would  then  be  transacted 
on  a  cash  basis  ;  there  would  be  no  more  debts.  Again,  to  how  great  a 
degree,  think  you,  would  that  diminish  the  shameful  number  of  suspen- 
sions, failures,  and  bankruptcies  ? 

But,  as  in  society  net  product  is  undistinguishable  from  raw  product, 
so  in  the  light  of  the  sum  total  of  economic  facts  capital  is  undistin- 
guishable from  product.  These  two  terms  do  not,  in  reality,  stand  for 
two  distinct  things  ;  they  designate  relations  only.  Product  is  capital  ; 
capital  is  product  :  there  is  a  difference  between  them  only  in  private 
economy  ;  none  whatever  in  public  economy.  If,  then,  interest,  after 
having  fallen  in  the  case  of  money  to  three-fourths  of  one  per  cent., — 
that  is,  to  zero,  inasmuch  as  three-fourths  of  one  per  cent,  represents 
only  the  service  of  the  bank, — should  fall  to  zero  in  the  case  of  merchan- 
dise also,  by  analogy  of  principles  and  facts  it  would  soon  fall  to  zero  in 
the  case  of  real  estate  ;  rent  would  disappear  in  becoming  one  with  liqui- 
dation. Do  you  think,  sir,  that  that  would  prevent  people  from  living 
in  houses  and  cultivating  land  ? 

If,  thanks  to  this  radical  reform  in  the  machinery  of  circulation,  labor 
was  compelled  to  pay  to  capital  only  as  much  interest  as  would  be  a  just 
reward  for  the  service  rendered  by  the  capitalist,  specie  and  real  estate 
being  deprived  of  their  reproductive  properties  and  valued  only  as  pro- 
ducts,— as  things  that  can  be  consumed  and  replaced, — the  favor  with 
which  specie  and  capital  are  now  looked  upon  would  be  wholly  transferred 
to  products  ;  each  individual,  instead  of  restricting  his  consumption, 
would  strive  only  to  increase  it.  Whereas,  at  present,  thanks  to  the  re- 
striction laid  upon  consumable  products  by  interest,  the  means  of  con- 
sumption are  always  very  much  limited,  then,  on  the  contrary,  produc- 
tion would  be  insufficient  ;  labor  would  then  be  secure  in  fact  as  well  as 
in  right. 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


I97 


The  laboring  class  gaining  at  one  stroke  the  five  thousand  millions,  or 
thereabouts,  now  taken  in  the  form  of  interest  from  the  ten  thousand 
millions  which  it  produces,  plus  five  thousand  millions  which  this  same 
interest  deprives  it  of  by  destroying  the  demand  for  labor,  plus  five 
thousand  millions  which  the  parasites,  cut  off  from  a  living,  would  then 
be  compelled  to  produce,  the  national  production  would  be  doubled  and 
the  welfare  of  the  laborer  increased  fourfold.  And  you,  sir,  whom  the 
worship  of  interest  does  not  prevent  from  lifting  your  thoughts  to  an- 
other world, — what  say  you  to  this  improvement  of  affairs  here  below? 
Do  you  see  now  that  it  is  not  the  multiplication  of  capital  which  decreases 
interest,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  is  the  decrease  of  interest  which 
multiplies  capital? 

Now,  this  reduction  of  the  rate  of  discount  to  the  bank's 
service,  and  the  results  therefrom  as  above  described,  are  pre- 
cisely what  would  happen  if  the  whole  business  of  banking 
should  be  thrown  open  to  free  competition.  It  behooves 
"  Basis  "  to  examine  this  argument  well  ;  for,  unless  he  can 
find  a  fatal  flaw  in  it,  he  must  stand  convicted,  in  saying  that 
"  when  the  accumulated  wealth  of  the  world  becomes  large 
enough,  no  one  will  pay  interest,"  of  putting  the  cart  before 
the  horse. 

"Basis  "  is  in  error  a  third  time  in  assuming  that  "Apex  " 
wishes  to  "  forbid  the  man  of  ability,  but  lacking  means,  using 
his  credit."  It  is  precisely  because  such  men  are  now  virtu- 
ally prohibited  from  using  their  credit  that  "Apex,"  and  Lib- 
erty with  him,  complains.  This  singular  misconception  on  the 
part  of  "  Basis  "  indicates  that  he  does  not  yet  understand 
what  he  is  fighting. 

The  fourth  error  for  which  "  Basis  "  assumes  responsibility 
is  found  in  his  statement  that  "  in  the  last  analysis  the  pos- 
sessor of  capital  has  acquired  it  by  a  willingness  to  work 
harder  than  his  fellows  and  to  sacrifice  his  love  of  spending  all 
he  produces  that  he  may  have  the  aid  of  capital  to  increase 
his  power  of  production."  A  man  who  thoroughly  means  to 
tell  the  truth  here  reiterates  one  of  the  most  devilish  of  the 
many  infernal  lies  for  which  the  economists  have  to  answer. 
It  is  indeed  true  that  the  possessor  of  capital  may,  in  rare 
cases,  have  acquired  it  by  the  method  stated,  though  even 
then  he  could  not  be  excused  for  making  the  capital  so  ac- 
quired a  leech  upon  his  fellow-men.  But  ninety-nine  times  in 
a  hundred  the  modern  possessor  of  any  large  amount  of  cap- 
ital has  acquired  it,  not  "by  a  willingness  to  work  harder  than 
his  fellows,"  but  by  a  shrewdness  in  getting  possession  of  a 
monopoly  which  makes  it  needless  for  him  to  do  any  real  work 
at  all ;  not  by  a  willingness  "  to  sacrifice  his  love  of  spending 
all  he  produces,"  but  by  a  cleverness  in  procuring  from  the 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


government  a  privilege  by  which  he  is  able  to  spend  in  wanton 
luxury  half  of  what  a  large  number  of  other  men  produce. 
The  chief  privilege  to  which  we  refer  is  that  of  selling  the 
people's  credit  for  a  price. 

"Basis"  is  guilty  of  several  other  errors  which  we  have  not 
space  to  discuss  at  length.    He  supposes  that  to  confine  the 
term  money  to  coin  and  to  call  all  other  money  currency  would 
simplify  matters,  when  in  reality  it  is  the  insistence  upon  this 
false  distinction  that  is  the  prevailing  cause  of  mystification. 
If  the  idea  of  the  royalty  of  gold  and  silver  could  be  once 
knocked  out  of  the  people's  heads,  and  they  could  once  un- 
derstand that  no  particular  kind  of  merchandise  is  created  by- 
nature  for  monetary  purposes,  they  would  settle  this  question 
in  a  trice.    Again,  he  seems  to  think  that  Josiah  Warren  based 
his  notes  on  corn.    Nothing  of  the  kind.    Warren  simply  took 
corn  as  his  standard,  but  made  labor  and  all  its  products  his 
basis.    His  labor  notes  were  rarely  redeemed  in  corn.    If  he 
had  made  corn  his  exclusive  basis,  there  would  be  no  distinc- 
tion in  principle  between  him  and  the  specie  men.  Perhaps 
the  central  point  in  his  monetary  theory  was  his  denial  of  the 
idea  that  any  one  product  of  labor  can  properly  be  made  the 
only  basis  of  money.    To  quote  him  in  this  connection  at  all 
is  the  height  of  presumption  on  the  part  of  "  Basis."   A  charge 
that  his  system,  which  recognized  cost  as  the  only  ground  of 
price,  even  contemplated  a  promise  to  pay  anything  "  for  value 
received,"  he  would  deem  the  climax  of  insult  to  his  memory. 
"Basis,"  in  donning  the  garments  of  Josiah  Warren  to  defend 
the  specie  fraud,  has  "stolen  the  livery  of  heaven  to  serve  the 
devil  in."    "  Basis  "  is  wrong,  too,  in  thinking  that  land  is  not 
a  good  basis  for  currency.    True,  unimproved  vacant  land, 
not  having  properly  a  market  value,  cannot  properly  give  value 
to  anything  that  represents  it  ;  but  permanent  improvements 
on  land,  which  should  have  a  market  value  and  carry  with 
them  a  title  to  possession,  are  an  excellent  basis  for  currency. 
It  is  not  the  raw  material  of  any  product  that  fits  it  for  a  basis, 
but  the  labor  that  has  been  expended  in  shaping  the  material. 

\s  for  the  immovability  of  land  unfitting  it  for  a  basis,  it  has 
just  the  opposite  effect.  Here  "  Basis  ".is  misled  by  the  idea 
that  currency  can  be  redeemed  only  in  that  on  which  it  is  based 
But  this  fertile  subject  has  taken  us  farther  than  we  intended 
to  follow  it.  So  here,  for  the  present,  we  will  quit  its  com- 
pany, meanwhile  handing  over  "  Basis"  to  the  tender  mercies 
of  "  Apex,"  and  heartily  indorsing  almost  all  that  Basis 
says  at  the  close  of  his  article  concerning  the  true  duty  of 
government,  as  long  as  it  shall  exist,  regarding  the  currency. 


MONEY    AN'L)  INTEREST. 


199 


"THE  POSITION  OF  WILLIAM." 

[Liberty,  October  13,  1888.] 

John  Ruskin,  in  the  first  of  his  "  Fors  Clavigera"  series  of 
letters  to  British  workmen,  opened  what  he  had  to  say  about 
interest  by  picturing  what  he  called  "the  position  of  William." 
Bastiat,  the  French  economist,  had  tried  to  show  the  nature 
of  capital  and  interest  by  a  Little  story,  in  which  a  carpenter 
named  James  made  a  plane  in  order  to  increase  his  productive 
power,  but,  having  made  it,  was  induced  by  a  fellow-carpenter 
named  William  to  lend  it  to  him  for  a  year  in  consideration  of 
receiving  a  new  plane  at  the  end  of  that  time  besides  a  plank 
for  the  use  of  it.  Having  fulfilled  these  conditions  at  the  end 
of  the  first  year,  William  borrowed  the  plane  again  on  the 
same  terms  at  the  beginning  of  the  second,  and  year  after  year 
the  transaction  was  repeated  to  the  third  and  fourth  genera- 
tions of  the  posterity  of  William  and  James.  Ruskin  disposed 
of  this  plausible  story  in  a  sentence  by  pointing  out  that  the 
transactions  of  William  and  James  amounted  simply  to  this,— 
that  William  made  a  plane  every  31st  December,  lent  it  to 
James  till  1st  January,  and  paid  James  a  plank  for  the  priv- 
ilege of  thus  lending  him  the  plane  overnight. 

Ruskin  called  this  "  the  position  of  William,"  and,  though 
he  threw  down  the  gauntlet  right  and  left,  he  never  could  find 
an  economist  rash  enough  to  undertake  to  dispute  the  justice 
of  his  abridgment  of  Bastiat's  tale.  At  last,  however,  one 
has  appeared.  F.  J.  Stimson  has  discovered  the  fallacy  in 
"the  position  of  William,"  and  confidently  tells  the  readers  of 
the  Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics  that  it  lies  in  Ruskin's 
tacit  assumption  that  the  plank  which  William  paid  James  was 
the  only  plank  which  the  plane  had  enabled  him  to  make 
during  the  year.  Mr.  Stimson  is  so  proud  of  this  discovery 
that  he  puts  it  in  italics,  but  I  am  unable  to  see  that  it  shows 
anything  except  Mr.  Stimson's  failure  to  get  down  to  the  kernel 
of  the  question  at  issue. 

If  Ruskin  made  the  assumption  attributed  to  him, — which  is 
improbable, — he  did  so  because  he  knew  perfectly  well  that  the 
number  of  planks  which  the  plane  enabled  William  to  make 
ought  in  equity  to  have  had  no  influence  upon  the  plane's  sell- 
ing or  lending  price,  always  provided  the  number  was  great 
enough  to  make  it  worth  while  to  have  manufactured  the  plane 
in  the  first  place.    If  Mr.  Stimson  were  half  the  economist 


200 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


that  Ruskin  is,  he  would  know  that,  in  the  absence  of  monop- 
oly, the  price  of  an  article  worth  producing  at  all  is  governed, 
not  by  its  utility,  but  by  the  cost  of  its  production,  and  that 
James  consequently,  though  his  plane  should  enable  William 
to  make  a  million  planks,  could  not  sell  or  lend  it  for  more 
than  it  cost  him  to  make  it,  except  he  enjoyed  a  monopoly  of 
the  plane-making  industry. 

The  fallacy  in  "  the  position  of  William  "  remains  undiscov- 
ered. Perhaps  a  few  more  such  failures  to  discover  it  as  Mr. 
Stimson's  may  convince  the  people  that  there  is  no  fallacy 
there  to  be  discovered.  On  the  whole,  the  original  policy  of 
James's  friends  was  the  safer  one —to  ignore  "  the  position  of 
William  "  on  the  ground  that  his  champion,  Mr.  Ruskin,  is  not 
an  economist,  but  an  artist. 


ECONOMIC  HODGE-PODGE. 

[Liberty,  October  8,  1887.] 

It  will  be  remembered  that,  when  a  correspondent  of  the 
Standard  signing  "Morris"  asked  Henry  George  one  or 
two  awkward  questions  regarding  interest,  and  George  tried 
to  answer  him  by  a  silly  and  forced  distinction  between  inter- 
est considered  as  the  increase  of  capital  and  interest  consid- 
ered as  payment  for  the  use  of  a  legal  tender,  John  F.  Kelly 
sent  to  the  Standard  a  crushing  reply  to  George,  which  the 
latter  refused  to  print,  and  which  subsequently  appeared  m 
No.  102  of  Liberty.  It  may  also  be  remembered  that  George's 
rejection  of  Kelly's  article  was  grounded  on  the  fact  that  since 
his  own  reply  to  "  Morris  "  he  had  received  several  articles  on 
the  interest  question,  and  that  he  could  not  afford  space  for 
the  consideration  of  this  subordinate  matter  while  the  all-im- 
portant land  question  was  yet  to  be  settled. 

I  take  it  that  the  land  battle  has  since  been  won,  for  in  the 
Standard  of  September  3  nearly  three  columns— almost  the 
entire  department  of  "Queries  and  Answers  "  m  that  issue— are 
<nven  to  a  defence  of  interest,  in  answer  to  the  questions  of 
two  or  three  correspondents.  The  article  is  a  long  elabora- 
tion of  the  reply  to  "  Morris,"  the  root  absurdity  of  which  is 
rendered  more  intangible  by  a  wall  of  words,  and  no  one 
would  know  from  reading  it  that  the  writer  had  ever  heard  of 
the  considerations  which  Mr.  Kelly  arrayed  against  his  posi- 
tion. It  is  true  that  at  one  or  two  points  he  verges  upon  them, 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST 


20  I 


but  his  words  are  a  virtual  admission  of  their  validity  and 
hence  a  reduction  of  interest  to  an  unsubstantial  form.  He 
seems,  therefore,  to  have  written  them  without  thought  of  Mr. 
Kelly  ;  for,  had  he  realized  their  effect,  he  could  not — assum- 
ing his  honesty — have  prepared  the  article,  which  has  no 
raison  d'etre  except  to  prove  that  interest  is  a  vital  reality 
apart  from  money  monopoly.  On  the  other  hand,  assuming 
his  dishonesty,  the  suspicion  inevitably  arises  that  he  pur- 
posely smothered  Mr.  Kelly's  article  in  order  to  subsequently 
juggle  over  the  matter  with  less  expert  opponents.  Unhap- 
pily this  suspicion  is  not  altogether  unwarrantable  in  view 
of  the  tactics  adopted  by  George  in  his  treatment  of  the  rent 
question. 

The  matter  seems,  too,  to  have  taken  on  importance,  as  it  is 
now  acknowledged  that  "  the  theory  of  interest  as  propounded 
by  Mr.  George  has  been  more  severely  and  plausibly  criticised 
than  any  other  phase  of  the  economic  problem  as  he  presents 
it."  When  we  consider  that  George  regards  it  as  an  economic 
law  that  interest  varies  inversely  with  so  important  a  thing  as 
rent,  we  see  that  he  cannot  consistently  treat  as  unimpor- 
tant any  "  plausible  "  argument  urged  in  support  of  the  theory 
that  interest  varies  principally,  not  with  rent*  but  with  the 
economic  conditions  arising  from  a  monopoly  of  the  currency. 

But,  however  the  article  may  be  accounted  for,  it  is  certainly 
before  us,  and  Mr.  George  (through  his  sub-editor,  Louis  F. 
Post,  for  whose  words  in  the  "  Queries  and  Answers  "  depart- 
ment he  may  fairly  be  held  responsible),  is  discussing  the  in- 
terest question.    We  will  see  what  he  has  to  say. 

It  appears  that  all  the  trouble  of  the  enemies  of  interest 
grows  out  of  their  view  of  it  as  exclusively  incidental  to  bor- 
rowing and  lending,  whereas  interest  on  borrowed  capital  is 
itself  "  incidental  to  real  interest,"  which  is  "  the  increase  that 
capital  yields  irrespective  of  borrowing  and  lending."  This 
increase,  Mr.  George  claims,  is  the  work  of  time,  and  from 
this  premise  he  reasons  as  follows: 

The  laborer  who  has  capital  ready  when  it  is  wanted,  and  thus,  by 
saving  time  in  making  it,  increases  production,  will  get  and  ought  to  get 
some  consideration, — higher  wages,  if  you  choose,  or  interest,  as  we  call  it, 
— just  as  the  skilful  printer  who  sets  fifteen  hundred  ems  an  hour  will 
~et  more  for  an  hour's  work  than  the  less  skilful  printer  who  sets  only  a 
thousand.  In  the  one  case  greater  power  due  to  skill,  and  in  the  other 
greater  power  due  to  capital,  produce  greater  results  in  a  given  time;  and 
:n  neither  case  is  the  increased  compensation  a  deduction  from  the  earn- 
ngs  of  other  men. 

To'make  this  analogy  a  fair  one  it  must  be  assumed  that 
skill  is  a  product  of  labor,  that  it  can  be  bought  and  sold,  and 


202 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


that  its  price  is  subject  to  the  influence  of  competition  ;  other- 
wise, it  furnishes  no  parallel  to  capital.  With  these  assump- 
tions the  opponent  of  interest  eagerly  seizes  upon  the  analogy 
as  entirely  favorable  to  his  own  position  and  destructive  of 
Mr.  George's.  If  the  skilful  printer  produced  his  skill  and 
can  sell  it,  and  if  other  men  can  produce  similar  skill  and  sell 
it,  the  price  that  will  be  paid  for  it  will  be  limited,  under  free 
competition,  by  the  cost  of  production,  and  will  bear  no  rela- 
tion to  the  extra  five  hundred  ems  an  hour.  The  case  is  pre- 
cisely the  same  with  capital.  Where  there  is  free  competition 
in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  spades,  the  price  of  a  spade 
will  be  governed  by  the  cost  of  its  production,  and  not  by  the 
value  of  the  extra  potatoes  which  the  spade  will  enable  its 
purchaser  to  dig.  Suppose,  however,  that  the  skilful  printer 
enjoyed  a  monopoly  of  skill.  In  that  case,  its  price  would  no 
longer  be  governed  by  the  cost  of  production,  but  by  its  util- 
ity to  the  purchaser,  and  the  monopolist  would  exact  nearly 
the  whole  of  the  extra  five  hundred  ems,  receiving  which  hourly 
he  would  be  able  to  live  for  the  rest  of  his  life  without  ever 
picking  up  a  type.  Such  a  monopoly  as  this  is  now  enjoyed 
by  the  holders  of  capital  in  consequence  of  the  currency 
monopoly,  and  this  is  the  reason,  and  the  only  reason,  why 
they  are  able  to  tax  borrowers  nearly  up  to  the  limit  of  the 
advantage  which  the  latter  derive  from  having  the  capital.  In 
other  words,  increase  which  is  purely  the  work  of  time  bears  a 
price  only  because  of  monopoly.  Abolish  the  monopoly,  then, 
and  what  becomes  of  Mr.  George's  "  real  interest  "  except  as 
a  benefit  enjoyed  by  all  consumers  in  proportion  to  their  con- 
sumption ?  As  far  as  the  owner  of  the  capital  is  concerned,  it 
vanishes  at  once,  and  Mr.  George's  wonderful  distinction  with  it. 

He  tells  us,  nevertheless,  that  the  capitalist's  share  of  the 
results  of  the  increased  power  which  capital  gives  the  laborer 
is  "  not  a  deduction  from  the  earnings  of  other  men."  Indeed  ! 
What  are  the  normal  earnings  of  other  men  ?  Evidently  what 
they  can  produce  with  all  the  tools  and  advantages  which 
they  can  procure  in  a  free  market  without  force  or  fraud.  If, 
then,  the  capitalist,  by  abolishing  the  free  market,  compels 
other  men  to  procure  their  tools  and  advantages  of  him  on  less 
favorable  terms  than  they  could  get  before,  while  it  may  be 
better  for  them  to  come  to  his  terms  than  to  go  without  the 
capital,  does  he  not  deduct  from  their  earnings  ? 

But  let  us  hear  Mr.  George  further  in  regard  to  the  great 
value  of  time  to  the  idler. 

Suppose  a  natural  spring  free  to  all,  and  that  Hodge  carries  a  pail  of 
water  from  it  to  a  place  where  he  can  build  a  fire  and  boil  the  water. 


liffONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


293 


Having  hung  a  kettle  and  poured  the  water  into  it,  and  arranged  the  fuel 
and  started  the  fire,  he  has  by  his  labor  set  natural  forces  at  work  in  a 
certain  direction  ;  and  they  arcat  work  for  him  alone,  because  without 
his  previous  labor  they  would  not  be  at  work  in  that  direction  at  all.  Now 
he  may  go  to  sleep,  or  run  off  and  play,  or  amuse  himself  in  any  way  that 
he  pleases  ;  and  when  an  hour — a  period  of  time — shall  have  elapsed, 
he  will  have,  instead  of  a  pail  of  cold  water,  a  pot  of  boiling  water.  Is 
there  no  difference  in  value  between  that  boiling  water  and  the  cold 
water  of  an  hour  before  ?  Would  he  exchange  the  pot  of  boiling  water 
for  a  pail  of  cold  water,  even  though  the  cold  water  were  in  the  pot  and 
the  fire  started?  Of  course  not,  and  no  one  would  expect  him  to.  And 
yet  between  the  time  when  the  fire  is  started  and  the  time  when  the  wa- 
ter boils  he  does  no  work.  To  what,  then,  is  that  difference  in  value  due  ? 
Is  it  not  clearly  due  to  the  element  of  time  ?  Why  does  Hodge  demand 
more  than  a  pail  of  cold  water  for  the  pot  of  boiling  water  if  it  is  not  that 
the  ultimate  object  of  his  original  labor — the  making  of  tea,  for  example — 
is  nearer  complete  than  it  was  an  hour  before,  and  that  an  even  exchange 
of  boiling  water  for  cold  water  would  delay  him  an  hour,  to  which  he  will 
not  submit  unless  he  is  paid  for  it?  And  why  is  Podge  willing  to  give 
more  than  a  pail  of  cold  water  for  the  pot  of  boiling  water,  if  it  is  not 
that  it  gives  him  the  benefit  of  an  hour's  time  in  production,  and  thus  in- 
creases his  productive  power  very  much  as  greater  skill  would?  And  if 
Podge  gives  to  Hodge  more  than  a  pail  of  cold  water  for  the  pot  of  boil- 
ing water,  does  Podge  lose  anything  that  he  had,  or  Hodge  gain  anything 
that  he  had  not  ?  No.  The  effect  of  the  transaction  is  a  transfer  for  a 
consideration  of  the  advantage  in  point  of  time  that  Hodge  had,  to  Podge 
who  had  it  not,  as  if  a  skilful  compositor  should,  if  he  could,  sell  his  skill 
to  a  less  skilful  member  of  the  craft. 

We  will  look  a  little  into  this  economic  Hodge-Podge. 

The  illustration  is  vitiated  from  beginning  to  end  by  the 
neglect  of  the  most  important  question  involved  in  it, — name- 
ly, whether  Hodge's  idleness  during  the  hour  required  for  the 
boiling  of  the  water  is  a  matter  of  choice  or  of  necessity.  It 
was  necessary  to  leave  this  out  in  order  to  give  time  the  credit 
of  boiling  the  water.  Let  us  not  leave  it  out,  and  see  what 
will  come  of  it.  If  Hodge's  idleness  is  a  matter  of  necessity, 
it  is  equivalent,  from  the  economic  standpoint,  to  labor,  and 
counts  as  labor  in  the  price  of  the  boiling  water.  A  store- 
keeper may  spend  only  five  hours  in  waiting  on  his  customers, 
but,  as  he  has  to  spend  another  five  hours  in  waiting  for  them, 
he  gets  paid  by  them  for  ten  hours'  labor.  His  five  hours' 
idleness  counts  as  labor,  because,  to  accommodate  his  cus- 
tomers, he  has  to  give  up  what  he  could  produce  in  those 
five  hours  if  he  could  labor  in  them.  Likewise,  if  Hodge, 
when  boiling  water  for  Podge,  is  obliged  to  spend  an  hour  in 
idleness,  he  will  charge  Podge  for  the  hour  in  the  price  which 
he  sets  on  the  boiling  water.  But  it  is  Hodge  himself,  this 
disposition  of  himself,  and  not  the  abstraction,  time,  that 
gives  the  water  its  exchangeable  value.    The  abstraction,  time. 


2P4 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK; 


is  as  truly  at  work  when  Hodge  is  bringing  the  water  from  the 
spring  and  starting  the  fire  as  wheji  he  is  asleep  waiting  for 
the  water  to  boil  ;  yet  Mr.  George  would  not  dream  of  at- 
tributing the  value  of  the  water  after  it  had  been  brought 
from  the  spring  to  the  element  of  time.  He  would  say  that  it 
was  due  entirely  to  the  labor  of  Hodge.  Properly  speaking, 
time  does  not  work  at  all,  but,  if  the  phrase  is  to  be  insisted 
on  in  economic  discussion,  it  can  be  admitted  only  with  some 
such  qualification  as  the  following  :  The  services  of  time  are 
venal  only  when  rendered  through  human  forces  ;  when  ren- 
dered exclusively  through  the  forces  of  nature,  they  are  gratui- 
tous. 

That  time  does  not  give  the  boiling  water  any  exchangeable 
value  becomes  still  more  evident  when  we  start  from  the 
hypothesis  that  Hodge's  idleness,  instead  of  being  a  matter 
of  necessity,  is  a  matter  of  choice.  In  that  case,  if  Hodge 
chooses  to  be  idle,  and  still  tries,  in  selling  the  boiling  water 
to  Podge,  to  charge  him  for  this  unnecessary  idleness,  the 
enterprising  Dodge  will  step  up  and  offer  boiling  water  to 
Podge  at  a  price  lower  than  Hodge's,  knowing  that  he  can 
afford  to  do  so  by  performing  some  productive  labor  while 
waiting  for  the  water  to  boil,  instead  of  loafing  like  Hodge. 
The  effect  of  this  will  be  that  Hodge  himself  will  go  to  work 
productively,  and  then  will  offer  Podge  a  better  bargain  than 
Dodge  has  proposed,  and  so  competition  between  Hodge  and 
Dodge  will  go  on  until  the  price  of  the  boiling  water  to  Podge 
shall  fall  to  the  value  of  the  labor  expended  by  either  Hodge 
or  Dodge  in  bringing  the  water  from  the  spring  and  starting 
the  fire.  Here,  then,  the  exchangeable  value  of  the  boiling 
water  which  was  said  to  be  due  to  time  has  disappeared,  and 
yet  it  takes  just  as  much  time  to  boil  the  water  as  it  did  in 
the  first  place. 

Mr.  George  gets  into  difficulty  in  discussing  this  question  of 
the  increase  of  capital  simply  because  he  continually  loses 
sight  of  the  fact  that  competition  lowers  prices  to  the  cost  of 
production  and  thereby  distributes  this  so-called  product  of 
capital  among  the  whole  people.  He  does  not  see  that  capital 
in  the  hands  of  labor  is  but  the  utilization  of  a  natural  force 
or  opportunity,  just  as  land  is  in  the  hands  of  labor,  and  that 
it  is  as  proper  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other  that  the  benefits 
of  such  utilization  of  natural  forces  should  be  enjoyed  by  the 
whole  body  of  consumers. 

Mr.  George  truly  says  that  rent  is  the  price  of  monopoly. 
Suppose,  now,  that  some  one  should  answer  him  thus  :  You 
misconceive  ;  you  clearly  have  leasing  exclusively  in  mind. 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


and  suppose  an  unearned  bonus  for  a  lease,  whereas  rent  of 
leased  land  is  merely  incidental  to  real  rent,  which  is  the 
superiority  in  location  or  fertility  of  one  piece  of  land  over 
another,  irrespective  of  leasing.  Mr.  George  would  laugh  at 
such  an  argument  if  offered  in  justification  of  the  receipt  and 
enjoyment  of  unearned  increment  or  economic  rent  by  the 
landlord.  But  he  himself  makes  an  equally  ridiculous  and 
precisely  parallel  argument  in  defence  of  the  usurer  when  he 
says,  in  answer  to  those  who  assert  that  interest  is  the  price  of 
monopoly  :  "  You  misconceive  ;  you  clearly  have  borrowing 
and  lending  exclusively  in  mind,  and  suppose  an  unearned 
bonus  for  a  loan,  whereas  interest  on  borrowed  capital  is 
merely  incidental  to  real  interest,  which  is  the  increase  that 
capital  yields,  irrespective  of  borrowing  and  lending." 

The  truth  in  both  cases  is  just  this,— that  nature  furnishes 
man  immense  forces  with  which  to  work  in  the  shape  of  land 
and  capital,  that  in  a  state  of  freedom  these  forces  benefit 
each  individual  to  the  extent  that  he  avails  himself  of  them, 
and  that  any  man  or  class  getting  a  monopoly  of  either  or 
both  will  put  all  other  men  in  subjection  and  live  in  luxury 
on  the  products  of  their  labor.  But  to  justify  a  monopoly  of 
either  of  these  forces  by  the  existence  of  the  force  itself,  or  to 
argue  that  without  a  monopoly  of  it  any  individual  could  get 
an  income  by  lending  it  instead  of  by  working  with  it,  is 
equally  absurd  whether  the  argument  be  resorted  to  in  the 
case  of  land  or  in  the  case  of  capital,  in  the  case  of  rent  or  m 
the  case  of  interest.  If  any  one  chooses  to  call  the  advantages 
of  these  forces  to  mankind  rent  in  one  case  and  interest  in  the 
other,  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any  serious  objection  to  his 
doing  so,  provided  he  will  remember  that  in  practical  economic 
discussion  rent  stands  for  the  absorption  of  the  advantages  of 
land  by  the  landlord,  and  interest  for  the  absorption  of  the 
advantages  of  capital  by  the  usurer. 

The  remainder  of  Mr.  George's  article  rests  entirely  upon 
the  time  argument.  Several  new  Hodge-Podge  combinations 
are  supposed  by  way  of  illustration,  but  in  none  of  them  is 
there  any  attempt  to  justify  interest  except  as  a  reward  of 
time.  The  inherent  absurdity  of  this  justification  having  been 
demonstrated  above,  all  that  is  based  upon  it  falls  with  it. 
The  superstructure  is  a  logical  ruin  ;  it  remains  only  to  clear 
away  the  debris. 

Hodge's  boiling  water  is  made  a  type  of  all  those  products 
of  labor  which  afterwards  increase  in  utility  purely  by  natural 
forces,  such  as  cattle,  corn,  etc.;  and  it  may  be  admitted  that, 
if  time  would  add  exchangeable  value  to  the  water  while  boi]- 


206 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


ing,  it  would  do  the  same  to  corn  while  growing,  and  cattle 
while  multiplying.  But  that  it  would  do  so  under  freedom 
has  already  been  disproved.  Starting  from  this,  however,  an 
attempt  is  made  to  find  in  it  an  excuse  for  interest  on  products 
which  do  not  improve  except  as  labor  is  applied  to  them,  and 
even  on  money  itself.  Hodge's  grain,  after  it  has  been  grow- 
ing for  a  month,  is  worth  more  than  when  it  was  first  sown  ; 
therefore  Podge,  the  shovel-maker,  who  supplies  a  market 
which  it  takes  a  month  to  reach,  is  entitled  to  more  pay  for 
his  shovels  at  the  end  of  that  month  than  he  would  have  been 
had  he  sold  them  on  the  spot  immediately  after  production  ; 
and  therefore  the  banker  who  discounts  at  the  time  of  produc- 
tion the  note  of  Podge's  distant  customer  maturing  a  month 
later,  thereby  advancing  ready  money  to  Podge,  will  be  en- 
titled, at  the  end  of  the  month,  from  Podge's  customer,  to 
the  extra  value  which  the  month's  time  is  supposed  to  have 
added  to  the  shovels. 

Here  Mr.  George  not  only  builds  on  a  rotten  foundation, 
but  he  mistakes  foundation  for  superstructure.  Instead  of 
reasoning  from  Hodge  to  the  banker  he  should  have  reasoned 
from  the  banker  to  Hodge.  His  first  inquiry  should  have  been 
how  much,  in  the  absence  of  a  monopoly  in  the  banking 
business,  the  banker  could  get  for  discounting  for  Podge 
the  note  of  his  customer  ;  from  which  he  could  then  have 
ascertained  how  much  extra  payment  Podge  could  get  for  his 
month's  delay,  in  the  shovel  transaction,  or  Hodge  for  the 
services  of  time  in  ripening  his  grain.  He  would  then  have 
discovered  that  the  banker,  who  invests  little  or  no  capital  of 
his  own,  and,  therefore,  lends  none  to  his  customers,  since  the 
security  which  they  furnish  him  constitutes  the  capital  upon 
which  he  operates,  is  forced,  in  the  absence  of  money  mo- 
nopoly, to  reduce  the  price  of  his  services  to  labor  cost, 
which  the  statistics  of  the  banking  business  show  to  be  much 
less  than  one  per  cent.  As  this  fraction  of  one  per  cent, 
represents  simply  the  banker's  wages  and  incidental  expenses, 
and  is  not  payment  for  the  use  of  capital,  the  element  of 
interest  disappears  from  his  transactions.  But,  if  Podge  can 
borrow  money  from  the  banker  without  interest,  so  can  Podge's 
customer  ;  therefore,  should  Podge  attempt  to  exact  from  his 
customer  remuneration  for  the  month's  delay,  the  latter  would 
at  once  borrow  the  money  and  pay  Podge  spot  cash.  Further- 
more Podge,  knowing  this,  and  being  able  to  get  ready  money 
easily  himself,  and  desiring,  as  a  good  man  of  business,  to  suit 
his  customer's  convenience,  would  make  no  such  attempt.  So 
Podge's  interest  is  gone  as  well  as  the  banker's.  .Hodge,  then. 


MONEY  AND  INTEREST. 


207 


is  the  only  usurer  left.  But  is  any  one  so  innocent  as  to 
suppose  that  Dodge,  or  Lodge,  or  Modge  will  long  continue  to 
pay  Hodge  more  for  his  grown  grain  than  his  sown  grain,  after 
any  or  all  of  them  can  get  land  free  of  rent  and  money  free 
of  interest,  and  thereby  force  time  to  work  for  them  as  well 
as  for  Hodge.  Nobody  who  can  get  the  services  of  time 
for  nothing  will  be  such  a  fool  as  to  pay  Hodge  for  them. 
Hodge,  too,  must  say  farewell  to  his  interest  as  soon  as  the 
two  great  monopolies  of  land  and  money  are  abolished.  The 
rate  of  interest  on  money  fixes  the  rate  of  interest  on  all  other 
capital  the  production  of  which  is  subject  to  competition,  and  when 
the  former  disappears  the  latter  disappears  with  it. 

Presumably  to  make  his  readers  think  that  he  has  given  due 
consideration  to  the  important  principle  just  elucidated,  Mr. 
George  adds,  just  after  his  hypothesis  of  the  banker's  transac- 
tion with  Podge  : 

Of  course  there  is  discount  and  discount.  I  am  speaking  of  a  legitimate 
economic  banking  transaction.  But  frequently  bank  discounts  are  nothing 
more  than  taxation,  due  to  the  choking  up  of  free  exchange,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  an  institution  that  controls  the  common  medium  of  ex- 
change can  impose  arbitrary  conditions  upon  producers  who  must  imme- 
diately use  that  common  medium. 

The  evident  purpose  of  the  word  "  frequently  "  here  is  to 
carry  the  idea  that,  when  a  bank  discount  is  a  tax  imposed  by 
monopoly  of  the  medium  of  exchange,  it  is  simply  a  some- 
what common  exception  to  the  general  rule  of  "  legitimate 
economic  banking  transactions."  For  it  is  necessary  to  have 
such  a  general  rule  in  order  to  sustain  the. theory  of  interest 
on  capital  as  a  reward  of  time.  The  exact  contrary,  however, 
is  the  truth.  Where  money  monopoly  exists,  it  is  the  rule  that 
bank  discounts  are  taxes  imposed  by  it,  and  when,  in  conse- 
quence of  peculiar  and  abnormal  circumstances,  discount  is 
not  in  the  nature  of  a  tax,  it  is  a  rare  exception.  The  aboli- 
tion of  money  monopoly  would  wipe  out  discount  as  a  tax 
and,  by  adding  to  the  steadiness  of  the  market,  make  the 
cases  where  it  is  not  a  tax  even  fewer  than  now.  Instead  of 
legitimate,  therefore,  the  banker's  transaction  with  Podge, 
being  exceptional  in  a  free  money  market  and  a  tax  of  the  or- 
dinary discount  type  in  a  restricted  money  market,  is  illegiti- 
mate if  cited  in  defence  of  interest  as  a  normal  economic 
factor. 

In  the  conclusion  of  his  article  Mr.  George  strives  to  show 
that  interest  would  not  enable  its  beneficiaries  to  live  by  the 
labor  of  others.  But  he  only  succeeds  in  showing,  though  in 
a  very  obscure,  indefinite,  and  intangible  fashion, — seemingly 


208 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


afraid  to  squarely  enunciate  it  as  a  proposition, — that  where 
there  is  no  monopoly  there  will  be  little  or  no  interest. 
Which  is  precisely  our  contention.  But  why,  then,  his  long 
article  ?  If  interest  will  disappear  with  monopoly,  what  will 
become  of  Hodge's  reward  for  his  time?  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  Hodge  is  to  be  rewarded  for  his  mere  time,  what  will 
reward  him  save  Podge's  labor?  There  is  no  escape  from  this 
dilemma.  The  proposition  that  the  man  who  for  time  spent 
in  idleness  receives  the  product  of  time  employed  in  labor  is 
a  parasite  up  on  the  body  industrial  is  one  which  an  expert 
necromancer  like  Mr.  George  may  juggle  with  before  an  audi- 
ence of  gaping  Hodges  and  Podges,  but  can  never  successfully 
dispute  with  men  who  understand  the  rudiments  of  political 
economy. 


AN  UNWARRANTED  QUESTION. 

[Liberty^  October  18,  1890.] 

Auberon  Herbert,  in  his  paper,  Free  Life,  asks  me  how  I 
"justify  a  campaign  against  the  right  of  men  to  lend  and  to 
borrow."  I  answer  that  I  do  not  justify  such  a  campaign, 
have  never  attempted  to  justify  such  a  campaign,  do  not 
advocate  such  a  campaign,  in  fact  am  ardently  opposed  to 
such  a  campaign.  In  turn,  I  ask  Mr.  Herbert  how  he  justifies 
his  apparent  attribution  to  me  of  a  wish  to  see  such  a  cam- 
paign instituted. 

It  is  true  that  I  expect  lending  and  borrowing  to  disappear, 
but  not  by  any  denial  of  the  right  to  lend  and  borrow.  On  the 
contrary,  I  expect  them  to  disappear  by  virtue  of  the  affirma- 
tion and  exercise  of  a  right  that  is  now  denied, — namely,  the 
right  to  use  one's  own  credit,  or  to  exchange  it  freely  for  an- 
other's, in  such  a  way  that  one  or  the  other  of  these  credits 
may  perform  the  function  of  a  circulating  medium,  without 
the  payment  of  any  tax  for  the  privilege.  It  has  been  repeat- 
edly demonstrated  in  these  columns  that  the  exercise  of  such 
a  right  would  accomplish  the  gradual  extinction  of  interest 
without  the  aid  of  force,  and  the  nature  of  this  economic 
process  has  been  described  over  and  over  again.  This  demon- 
stration Mr.  Herbert  steadily  ignores,  and  the  position  itself 
he  never  meets  save  by  a  sweeping  denial,  or  by  characterizing 
it  as  unphilosophical,  or  by  substituting  for  it  a  man  of  straw 
of  his  own  creation  and  then  knocking  it  down. 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


209 


The  Anarchists  assert  that  interest,  however  it  may  have 
originated,  exists  to-day  only  by  virtue  of  the  legal  monopoly 
of  the  use  of  credit  for  currency  purposes,  and  they  trace  the 
process,  step  by  step,  by  which  an  abolition  of  that  monopoly 
would  gradually  reduce  interest  to  zero.  Mr.  Herbert  never 
stops  to  analyze  this  process  that  he  may  find  the  weak  spot 
in  it  and  point  it  out  ;  he  simply  declares  that  interest,  instead 
of  resting  on  monopoly,  is  the  natural,  inevitable  outcome  of 
human  convenience  and  the  open  market,  and  then  wants  to 
know  how  the  Anarchists  justify  their  attempt  to  abolish  in- 
terest by  force. 

It  is  as  if  Mr.  Herbert  were  to  maintain  (as  I  suppose  he 
does  maintain)  that  freedom  in  the  domestic  relation  would 
gradually  lessen  and  perhaps  abolish  licentiousness,  and  I 
were  to  answer  him  thus  :  "  Oh,  no,  Mr.  Herbert,  you  are  un- 
philosophical  ;  prostitution  does  not  rest  on  the  compulsory 
marriage  system,  but  is  the  natural,  inevitable  outcome  of 
human  convenience  and  desire  ;  how  do  you  justify,  I  should 
like  to  know,  a  campaign  against  the  right  of  men  and  women 
to  traffic  in  the  gratifications  of  the  flesh  ? "  In  such  a  case 
Mr.  Herbert,  I  imagine,  would  say  that  I  had  studied  his 
teaching  very  carelessly.  And  that  is  what  I  am  forced  to  say 
of  him,  much  against  my  will. 

If  it  be  true  that  interest  will  exist  in  the  absence  of  mo- 
nopoly, then  there  is  some  flaw  in  the  reasoning  by  which  the 
Anarchists  argue  from  the  abolition  of  monopoly  to  the  disap- 
pearance of  interest,  and  it  is  incumbent  upon  Mr.  Herbert 
to  point  this  flaw  out,  or  else  admit  his  own  error.  It  is  almost 
incredible  that  an  argument  so  often  reiterated  can  have  es- 
caped the  attention  of  so  old  a  reader  of  Liberty  as  Mt.  Her- 
bert, but,  lest  he  should  plead  this  excuse,  I  will  state  that  it 
is  most  elaborately  and  conclusively  set  forth  in  the  pamphlet, 
"  Mutual  Banking,"  by  Col.  Wm.  B.  Greene.  If,  after  master- 
ing the  position,  he  thinks  he  can  overthrow  it,  I  shall  be  glad 
to  meet  him  on  that  issue. 


AN  ALLEGED  FLAW  IN  ANARCHY. 

[Liberty,  November  29,  1890.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty : 

I  am  sorry  if  I  have  misinterpreted  Liberty.  I  have  not  what  I  wrote 
before  me,  but  I  do  not  think  I  could  have  had  the  slightest  intention  of  im- 
puting to  Liberty  a  force  campaign  against  interest  ;  but  I  believed  (am  I 


2  IO 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


wrong  ?)  that  I  had  seen  both  interest  and  rent  denounced  in  Liberty  as 
objectionable  and  opposed  to  the  interests  of  society.  It  was  to  this  I  was 
referring  as  a  moral  campaign.  My  own  position  is  that  interest  is  both 
moral  and  useful,  and  often  more  than  anything  else  a  chance  of  a  better 
future  to  workmen.  If  workmen  would  give  up  punching  the  head  of 
capital,  and,  instead  of  that  little  amusement,  resolutely  combine  for  the 
purpose  of  investing  in  industrial  concerns*  so  as  gradually  to  become  the 
part-owner  of  the  industrial  machinery  of  the  country,  whilst  they  no 
longer  remained  wholly  dependent  upon  wages,  but  partly  upon  wages, 
partly  upon  the  return  of  invested  money,  I  believe  the  great  problem  of 
our  time  would  be  approaching  its  solution. 

As  regards  rent,  I  think  that  all  Anarchists,  including  even  sober-minded 
Liberty,  use  force  to  get  rid  of  it.  The  doctrine  of  use-possession  seems 
almost  framed  for  this  purpose.  Even  if  it  suits  certain  persons  to  sell  me 
a  hundred  acres,  and  it  suits  me  to  buy  it,  and  it  suits  other  people  to  rent 
it  from  me, — as  I  understand,  Liberty  would  not  sanction  the  proceeding. 
We  are  all  of  us,  in  fact,  to  be  treated  as  children,  who  don't  know  our 
own  interests,  and  for  whom  somebody  else  is  to  judge.  You  may  reply 
that  under  the  Anarchist  system  no  action  would  be  taken  to  prevent  such 
an  arrangement  ;  only  that  no  action  would  be  taken  to  prevent  the  tenants 
from  establishing  themselves  as  proprietors  and  ignoring  their  rent  owed 
to  me.  Good ;  but  then  how  do  you  justify  the  fact  that  there  is  a  pro- 
posed machinery  (local  juries,  etc.)  to  secure  the  possessor  who  holds 
under  use-possession  in  his  holding  and  to  prevent  his  disturbance  by 
somebody  else  ?  Put  these  two  opposed  treatments  together,  and  it 
means  to  say  that  a  certain  body  of  men  have  settled  for  others  a  form  in 
which  they  may  hold  property,  and  a  form  in  which  they  may  not.  The 
desires  and  the  conveniences  of  the  persons  themselves  are  set  aside,  and, 
as  in  old  forms  of  government,  a  principle  representing  centralization  and 
socialistic  regulation  obtains.    Is  this  Anarchy  ? 

Auberon  Herbert. 

Mr.  Herbert's  disclaimer  is  of  course  sufficient  to  establish 
the  fact  that  he  did  not  mean  to  charge  me  with  an  attempt  to 
prohibit  lending  and  borrowing.  But  I  must  remind  him  that 
the  charge  which  he  made  against  me  he  made  also  at  the 
same  time  against  his  correspondent,  Mr.  J.  Armsden  ;  that 
Mr.  Armsden  interpreted  it  as  I  did  and  protested  against  its 
application  to  himself  (though  gratuitously  allowing  that  it  was 
justly  applicable  to  me)  ;  and  that  Mr.  Herbert  made  rejoin- 
der, if  my  memory  serves  me,  that  he  had  misunderstood 
Mr.  Armsden.  Now,  I  cannot  see  why  Mr.  Herbert  should 
not  admit  in  the  same  unqualified  way  that  he  misunderstood 
me,  instead  of  suggesting  that  I  misunderstood  him.  But  this 
is  of  little  consequence  ;  I  am  satisfied  to  call  it  a  case  of 
mutual  misunderstanding. 

To  avoid  such  misunderstanding  in  future,  however,  is  of 
real  importance  ;  and  to  that  end  I  must  further  remind  Mr. 
Herbert  that,  when  I  use  the  word  right,  I  do  so  in  one  of  two 
senses,  which  the  context  generally  determines, — either  in  the 
moral  sense  of  irresponsible  prerogative,  or  in  the  social  sense 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


2  1  I 


of  accorded  guarantee.  Mr.  Herbert,  knowing  that  I  am  an 
Egoist,  must  be  perfectly  aware  that  it  would  be  impossible 
for  me  to  enter  upon  a  moral  campaign  against  any  special 
right  in  the  sense  of  irresponsible  prerogative,  for  it  is  the 
Egoistic  position  either  that  no  one  has  any  rights  whatever  or 
— what  amounts  to  the  same  thing — that  every  one  has  all 
rights.  But  it  would  be  equally  impossible  for  me  to  enter 
upon  a  moral  campaign  against  a  right  in  the  sense  of  accorded 
guarantee,  unless  it  wrere  a  case  where  I  should  consider  myself 
justified,  if  it  seemed  expedient,  in  turning  that  moral  cam- 
paign into  a  force  campaign.  For  I  could  have  no  objection 
to  any  accorded  guarantee  save  on  the  ground  that  the  thing 
guaranteed  was  a  privilege  of  invasion,  and  against  invasion  I 
am  willing  to  use  any  weapons  that  will  accomplish  its  destruc- 
tion, preferring  moral  weapons  in  all  cases  where  they  are 
effective,  but  willing  to  resort  to  those  of  physical  force  when- 
ever necessary.  So  Mr.  Herbert  is  now  duly  cautioned  not  to 
charge  me  with  maintaining,  against  any  right  whatever,  a  cam- 
paign which  anything  but  expediency  makes  exclusively  moral. 

To  go  now  from  the  general  to  the  particular.  I  could  not 
engage  in  any  sort  of  campaign  against  the  right  to  lend  and 
borrow,  because  I  do  not  consider  that  right  a  privilege  of  in- 
vasion. If,  however,  lending  and  borrowing  should  disappear 
in  consequence  of  the  overthrow  of  that  form  of  invasion 
which  consists  of  the  monopoly  of  the  right  to  issue  notes  as 
currency,  that  is  not  my  affair. 

It  is  the  contention  of  the  Anarchists  that  lending  and  bor- 
rowing, and  consequently  interest,  will  virtually  disappear  when 
banking  is  made  free.  Mr.  Herbert's  only  answer  to  this  is 
that  he  considers  interest  moral  and  useful.  Does  he  mean  by 
this  that  that  is  moral  and  useful  which  will  disappear  under 
free  competition  ?  Then  why  does  he  favor  free  competition  ? 
Or  does  he  deny  that  interest  will  so  disappear?  Then  let  him 
disprove  the  Anarchists'  definite  and  succinct  argument  that 
it  will.  In  my  last  article,  to  which  his  present  article  is  a 
reply,  I  strongly  invited  him  to  do  this,  but  as  usual  he  ignores 
the  invitation.  Nevertheless  he  and  all  his  Individualistic 
friends  will  have  to  meet  us  on  that  issue  sooner  or  later,  and 
he  may  as  well  face  the  music  at  once. 

Now,  a  word  about  rent.  It  is  true  that  Anarchists,  includ- 
ing sober-minded  Liberty,  do,  in  a  sense,  propose  to  get  rid  of 
ground-rent  by  force.  That  is  to  say,  if  landlords  should  try 
to  evict  occupants,  the  Anarchists  advise  the  occupants  to 
combine  to  maintain  their  ground  by  force  whenever  they  see 
that  they  can  do  so  successfully.     But  it  is  also  true  that  the 


2  12 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOR. 


Individualists,  including  sober-minded  Mr.  Herbert,  propose 
to  get  rid  of  theft  by  force.  "  Even  if  it  suits  certain  persons 
to  sell  me  "  Mr.  Herbert's  overcoat,  "  and  it  suits  me  to  buy  u, 
and  it  suits  other  people  to  rent  it  from  me-as  I  understand 
Air  Herbert  "  would  not  sanction  the  proceeding.  We  are  all 
of  us,  in  fact,  to  be  treated  as  children,  who  don't  know  our 
own  interests,  and  for  whom  somebody  else  is  to  judge.  lne 
Anarchists  justify  the  use  of  machinery  (local  juries,  etc  )  to 
adjust  the  property  question  involved  m  rent  just  as  the  Indi- 
vidualists justify  similar  machinery  to  adjust  the  property  ques- 
tion involved  in  theft.  And  when  the  Individualists  so  adjust 
the  property  question  involved  in  theft,  this  "  means  to  say  that 
a  certain  body  of  men  have  settled  for  others  a  form  in  which 
they  may  hold  property  and  a  form  in  which  they  may  not, 
regardless  of  "  the  desires  and  conveniences  of  the  persons 

themselves."  *  uu 

Yes  this  is  Anarchy,  and  this  is  Individualism.  The  trouble 
with  Mr  Herbert  is  that  he  begs  the  question  of  property  alto- 
gether, and  insists  on  treating  the  land  problem  as  if  it  were 
simply  a  question  of  buying  and  selling  and  lending  and  bor- 
rowing, to  be  settled  simply  by  the  open  market  Here  I  meet 
him  with  the  words  of  his  more  conservative  brother  m  Indi- 
vidualism, Mr.  J.  H.  Levy,  editor  of  the  Personal  Rights 
Journal,  who  is  trying  to  show  Mr.  Herbert  that  he  ought  to 
call  himself  an  Anarchist  instead  of  an  Individualist.  Mr. 
Levy  says,  and  I  say  after  him  :  "  When  we  come  to  the  ques- 
tion of  the  ethical  basis  of  property,  Mr.  Herbert  refers  us  to 
'the  open  market.'  But  this  is  an  evasion.  The  question  is 
not  whether  we  should  be  able  to  sell  or  acquire  m  the  open 
market'  anything  which  we  rightfully  possess  but  how  we 
come  into  rightful  possession.  And,  if  men  differ  on  this,  as 
they  do  most  emphatically,  how  is  this  to  be  settled  ? 


SHALL  THE  TRANSFER  PAPERS  BE  TAXED  ? 

{Liberty,  August  18,  1888.] 

ni££t&  fasfs^onths  I  have  read  your  paper  searchingly  and 
erelrty  agdmirePit  in  many  respeets,  but  as  yet  do  not  grasp  your  theory 
oMnte^st.  Canyon  give  spaee  for  a  few  words  to  show  from  your 
srandDoint  the  fallacy  in  the  following  ideas? 

Interest  I  understand  to  be  a  payment,  not  for  money  but  for  capital 
which  the  money  represents;  that  is,  for  the  use  of  the  accumulated 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


213 


wealth  of  the  race.  As  that  is  limited,  while  human  wants  are  infinite, 
it  would  appear  that  there  will  always  be  a  demand  for  more  than  exists. 
The  simplest  way  of  solving  the  difficulty  would,  therefore,  be  to  put  the 
social  capital  up  and  let  open  competition  settle  its  price.  Added  accu- 
mulation means  greater  competition  to  let  it,  so  that  its  price  will  be  low- 
ered year  by  year.  But  can  that  price  ever  become  nothing  so  long  as 
men  have  additional  wants  that  capital  can  assist  to  fill  ?  Yet  Mr.  West- 
rup  advocates  a  rate  of  interest  based  on  the  cost  of  issuing  the  money, 
— that  is,  allowing  nothing  for  the  capital.  Is  "  stored  labor"  so  plenty 
as  to  be  cheaper  than  blackberries  ? 

For  illustration,  A  has  $1,000  worth  of  land,  buildings,  etc.,  in  a  farm, 
but  sees  that  he  can  use  $1,500  worth  profitably.  So  he  places  a  mort- 
gage of  $500  on  the  place  and  invests  it  in  more  property.  Now  to  say 
that  he  should  have  that  additional  property  merely  for  the  cost  of  issu- 
ing the  paper  which  represents  it  during  the  transfer  would  belike  saying 
that,  when  he  bought  his  house,  he  should  have  it  merely  for  cost  of  the 
transfer  papers, — the  deeds,  etc., — paying  nothing  for  the  house  itself. 

In  a  line  my  query  is  :  Where  do  your  definitions  of  interest  and  dis- 
count on  money  diverge?  Yours  truly, 

J.  Herbert  Foster. 

Meriden,  Connecticut. 

Discount  is  the  sum  deducted  in  advance  from  property 
temporarily  transferred,  by  the  owner  thereof,  as  a  condition 
of  the  transfer,  regardless  of  the  ground  upon  which  such 
condition  is  demanded. 

Interest  is  payment  for  the  use  of  property,  and,  if  paid  in 
advance,  is  that  portion  of  the  discount  exacted  by  the  owner 
of  the  property  temporarily  transferred  which  he  claims  as 
payment  for  the  benefit  conferred  upon  the  other  party,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  that  portion  which  he  claims  as  payment  for 
the  burden  borne  by  himself. 

The  opponents  of  interest  desire,  by  reducing  the  rate  of 
discount  to  cost,  or  price  of  burden  borne,  to  thereby  elimi- 
nate from  discount  all  payment  merely  for  benefit  conferred. 

But  they  are  entirely  innocent  of  any  desire  to  abolish  pay- 
ment for  burden  borne,  as  it  certainly  would  be  abolished  in 
the  case  supposed  by  Mr.  Foster,  were  A  to  obtain  his  extra 
$500  worth  of  property  simply  by  paying  the  cost  of  making 
out  the  transfer  papers.  A  certainly  could  not  thus  obtain  it 
under  the  system  of  credit  proposed  by  the  opponents  of  inter- 
est. His  obligation  is  not  discharged  when  he  has  paid  over 
to  the  man  of  whom  he  buys  the  property  the  $500  which  he 
has  borrowed  on  mortgage.  He  still  has  to  discharge  the 
mortgage  by  paying  to  the  lender  of  the  money,  at  the  expira- 
tion of  the  loan,  in  actual  wealth  or  valid  documentary  claim 
upon  wealth,  the  §500  which  he  borrowed.  That  is  the  time 
when  he  really  pays  for  the  property  in  which  he  invested. 
Now,  the  question  is  whether  he  shall  pay  simply  the  $500, 


214 


INSTEAD  OK   A  BOOK. 


which  is  supposed  to  represent  the  full  value  of  the  property 
at  the  time  he  made  the  investment,  or  whether  he  shall  also 
pay  a  bonus  for  the  use  of  the  property  up  to  the  time  when 
he  finally  pays  for  it.  The  opponents  of  interest  say  that  he 
should  not  pay  this  bonus,  because  his  use  of  the  property  has 
imposed  no  burden  upon  the  lender  of  the  money,  and  under 
free  competition  there  is  no  price  where  there  is  no  burden. 
They  declare,  not  that  he  should  not  pay  the  $500,  but  that 
the  only  bonus  he  should  pay  is  to  be  measured  by  the  cost  of 
making  out  the  mortgage  and  other  documents,  including  all 
the  expenses  incidental  thereto. 

The  only  reason  why  he  now  has  to  pay  a  bonus  propor- 
tional to  the  benefit  he  derives  from  the  use  of  the  property  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  the  lender  of  the  money,  or  the  original 
issuer  of  the  money,  from  whom  the  lender  procured  it  more 
or  less  directly,  has  secured  a  monopoly  of  money  manufac- 
ture and  can  therefore  proportion  the  price  of  his  product  to 
the  necessities  of  his  customers,  instead  of  being  forced  by  com- 
petition to  limit  it  to  the  average  cost  of  manufacture.  In 
short,  what  the  opponents  of  interest  object  to  is,  not  payment 
for  property  purchased,  but  a  tax  upo?i  the  transfer  papers  ; 
and  the  very  best  of  all  arguments  against  interest,  or  pay- 
ment for  the  use  of  property,  is  the  fact  that,  at  the  present 
advanced  stage  in  the  operation  of  economic  forces,  it  cannot 
exist  to  any  great  extent  without  taking  this  form  of  a  tax 
upon  the  transfer  papers. 

Shall  the  transfer  papers  be  taxed  ?  That  is  the  ques- 
tion which  Liberty  asks,  and  Mr.  Foster  has  already  answered 
it  in  the  negative  by  saying  that  open  competition  should  be 
left  to  settle  the  price  of  capital.  But  when  this  open  compe- 
tition is  secured,  it  will  be  found  that,  though  there  may  be  no 
limit  to  the  desire  for  wealth,  there  is  a  limit  at  any  given 
time  to  the  capacity  of  the  race  to  utilize  capital,  and  that  the 
amount  of  capital  created  will  always  tend  to  exceed  this 
capacity.  Then  capital  will  seek  employment  and  be  glad  to 
lend  itself  to  labor  for  nothing,  asking  only  to  be  kept  intact, 
and  reimbursed  for  the  cost  of  the  transfer  papers.  Such  is 
the  process  by  which  interest,  or  payment  for  the  use  of  prop- 
erty, not  only  will  be  lowered,  but  will  entirely  disappear. 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


215 


MONEY  AND  CAPITAL. 

[Liberty.  December  1,  1888.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty : 

I  have  read  attentively  Mr.  Westrup's  farther  statement  on  mutual 
banking,  but  fail  to  see  wherein  he  touches  what  is  to  my  mind  the  vital 
point.  He  says  that  the  system  "would  not  be  making  use  of  capital 
that  belonged  to  some  one  else."  Then  I  cannot  see  how  it  would  an- 
swer its  purpose.  The  bank  itself  has  no  capital  save  the  pledges  ad- 
vanced by  borrowers,  and  if  they  take  out  no  more  than  they  put  in,  they 
make  no  gain,  but  are  merely  to  the  expense  of  the  transaction.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  they  do  take  out  more,  some  one  else  must  have  put  it 
in.  They  do  not  increase  their  wealth  by  using  their  own  property  as  a 
basis  on  which  to  make  advances  to  themselves.  It  is  only  when  some  one 
else  accepts  it  as  a  pledge  on  which  to  advance  his  property  that  they 
have  made  a  gain.  And  if  there  is  no  one  to  be  paid  a  dividend  but  "  the 
same  borrowers,"  that  some  one  else  will  go  unpaid. 

The  borrower's  object  is  to  get  the  use  of  additional  capital,  not  of  the 
money  that  represents  it  during  the  transfer.  If  he  gets  it,  "some  one 
[else]  is  deprived  of  the  use  of  that  much  wealth,"  as  two  cannot  use  the 
same  property  at  the  same  time.  Our  farmer  worth  $1,000,  who  bor- 
rowed $500  and  invested  it,  found  at  the  end  of  the  transaction  that  he 
had  at  his  disposal  $1,500  worth  of  property.  Now,  where  did  the  last 
$500  worth  come  from  ?  Like  all  created  things,  its  ownership  vested 
rightfully  in  its  creator  ;  the  farmer  was  not  that  creator,  or  he  would  not 
have  had  to  borrow  it.  The  bank,  in  issuing  a  volume  of  circulating  me- 
dium, neither  increased  nor  diminished  the  aggregate  wealth  of  the  coun- 
try appreciably.  It  engaged  in  no  "productive"  industry.  It  did  not 
create  500  dollars'  nor  500  cents'  worth  of  property.  In  fact,  Mr.  West- 
rup's rate  of  interest  represents  what  it  did  create  in  additional  value  in 
making  out  the  transfer  papers, — a  fraction  of  one  per  cent,  of  the  $500. 
If,  then,  neither  the  bank  nor  the  farmer  created  it,  is  it  not  clear  that 
they  "  made  use  of  capital  that  belonged  to  some  one  else  "  ? 

The  distinction  between  owning  property  and  merely  having  the  use  of 
it  has  been  pointed  out  to  me,  but  appears  largely  verbal,  for  the  only 
value  of  property  is  the  use  thereof.  At  any  rate,  it  seems  clear  that  our 
farmer  gets  the  use  of  $500  worth  of  property  so  long  as  he  pays  the  ex- 
pense of  keeping  $500  of  circulating  medium  afloat.  He  uses  his  $1,000 
worth  of  property  as  a  guarantee  to  the  producer  of  the  $500  of  value 
that  the  latter  shall  receive  back  his  property  intact,  but  with  no  payment 
for  use. 

If  I  have  understood  correctly  the  reply  to  my  former  letter,  this  is 
Liberty's  idea ;  but  I  do  not  see  that  Mr.  Westrup  coincides.  However, 
if  I  am  in  error,  I  trust  I  am  "  open  to  conviction  "  and  await  further 
light. 

J.  Herbert  Foster. 

Mr.  Foster's  difficulty  arises  from  the  futile  attempt,  which 
many  others  have  made  before  him,  to  distinguish  money 
from  capital,  the  real  fact  being  that  money,  though  not  capi- 
tal in  a  material  sense,  is,  in  the  economic  sense  and  to  all  in- 


2l6  INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 

tents  and  purposes,  the  most  perfect  and  desirable  form  of 
capital,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  the  only  form  of  capital  which 
will  at  any  time  almost  instantly  procure  all  other  forms  of 
capital.  Practically  speaking,  that  man  has  capital  who  holds 
an  instantly  convertible  title  to  capital.* 

If  this  be  true,  then  Mr.  Foster's  claim  that  mutual  bank- 
ing involves  the  "  making  use  of  capital  that  belongs  to  some 
one  else  "  falls  immediately.  Does  he  mean  to  say  that,  when 
the  borrower  of  a  mutual  bank's  notes  goes  into  the  market 
and  buys  capital  with  them,  he  is  thereby  keeping  the  seller 
out  of  his  capital  ?  If  so,  then  Mr.  Foster,  when  he  pays  his 
butcher  cash  for  a  beefsteak  for  his  to-morrow's  breakfast,  is 
keeping  his  butcher  out  of  his  capital.  But  does  either  he  or 
his  butcher  ever  look  at  his  conduct  in  that  light?  If  that  is 
being  kept  out  of  capital,  then  is  the  butcher  only  too  glad  to 
be  thus  deprived.  He  keeps  a  shop  for  the  express  purpose 
of  being  kept  out  of  his  capital,  and  he  feels  that  it's  very 
hard  lines  and  a  very  dull  season  when  he  isn't  kept  out  of  it. 
He  knows  that,  when  he  sells  a  beefsteak  to  Mr.  Foster  for 
cash,  he  parts  with  capital  for  which  he  has  no  use  himself 
and  gets  in  exchange  a  title  convertible  whenever  he  may 
choose  into  such  capital  as  he  has  use  for,  and  he  knows  fur- 
ther that  he  greatly  benefits  by  the  transaction.  The  position 
of  Mr.  Foster's  butcher  is  precisely  parallel  to  that  of  the 
manufacturer  of  machinery  who  sells  a  plough  or  a  press  or 
an  engine  to  a  borrower  from  a  mutual  bank.  Clearly,  then, 
Mr.  Foster's  sympathy  for  this  manufacturer  is  misplaced. 

Of  course  the  position  which  I  have  just  taken  does  not 
hold  with  notes  that  will  not  command  capital, — that  is,  that 
are  not  readily  received  as  money.  But  that  is  not  the  point 
under  dispute.  When  Mr.  Foster  shall  question  the  solvency 
of  mutual  money,  I  will  meet  him  on  that  point  also.  For 
the  present  my  sole  contention  against  him  is  that  the  man 
who  exchanges  a  material  value  for  good  money  is  not  thereby 
kept  out  of  his  capital. 


*  This  paragraph  on  the  surface  seems  contradictory  of  the  position 
taken  on  a  previous  page  in  answer  to  "  Basis."  And  in  form  and 
terms  it  does  contradict  it.  But  a  careful  reading  of  both  passages,  in 
connection  with  the  accompanying  explanatory  sentences,  will  show  that 
there  is  no  inconsistency  between  them. 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


2I7 


"TO-DAY'S"  VIEW  OF  INTEREST. 

[Liberty,  July  26,  1890.] 

When  I  saw  the  word  "  Interest  "  at  the  top  of  an  article  in 
a  recent  issue  of  To-day,  I  said  to  myself:  This  looks  prom- 
ising ;  either  the  editor  of  To-day  is  about  to  remove  the 
basis  (so  far  as  his  paper  is  concerned)  of  Mr.  Yarros's  vigor- 
ous criticism  upon  journals  of  its  class  that  they  fail  of  influ- 
ence because  they  neglect  to  show  that  individualism  will  re- 
dress economic  grievances,  or  else  he  has  discovered  some 
vital  flaw  in  the  Anarchist  economics  and  is  about  to  save  us 
further  waste  of  energy  by  showing  that  economic  liberty  will 
not  produce  the  results  we  predict  from  it.  Fancy  my  disap- 
pointment when,  on  reading  the  article,  I  found  it  made  up, 
seven  eighths,  of  facts  and  historical  remarks  which  would  be 
more-interesting  if  less  venerable,  but  which,  though  pertinent 
as  throwing  light  upon  the  conditions  under  which  interest 
arose,  prevailed,  and  fluctuated,  have  not  the  remotest  bear- 
ing upon  the  arguments  of  those  who  dispute  the  viability  of 
interest  to-day  ;  one-sixteenth,  of  the  assertion  of  an  economic 
truism,  equally  without  significance  in  connection  with  those 
arguments  ;  and,  one-sixteenth,  of  the  assertion  of  an  economic 
error,  which  assertion  betrays  no  familiarity  with  those  argu- 
ments (although  it  is  within  my  knowledge  that  the  editor  of 
To-day  possesses  such  familiarity  in  a  considerable  degree), 
and  which  error  can  be  sufficiently  refuted  by  stating  it  in  a 
slightly  different  form. 

The  irrelevant  facts  I  ignore.  I  do  not  care  a  copper 
whether  interest  was  twelve  per  cent,  in  Aristotle's  time  or 
eighteen  in  Solon's  ;  whether  Catholicism  and  Mohammedan- 
ism were  united  in  their  aversion  to  it  ;  whether  Jew  or  Chris- 
tian has  been  the  greater  usurer.  The  modern  opponents  of 
interest  are  perfectly  willing  to  consider  facts  tending  to  refute 
their  position,  but  no  facts  can  have  such  a  tendency  unless 
they  belong  to  one  of  two  classes  :  first,  facts  showing  that 
interest  has  generally  (not  sporadically)  existed  in  a  commun- 
ity in  whose  economy  money  was  as  important  a  factor  as  it  is 
with  us  to-day  and  in  whose  laws  there  was  no  restriction 
upon  its  issue;  or,  second,  facts  showing  that  interest  is  sus- 
tained by  causes  that  would  still  be  effectively,  invincibly 
operative  after  the  abolition  of  the  banking  monopoly.  I  do 
not  find  any  such  facts  among  those  cited  by  To-day.  The 
array  is  formidable  in  appearance  only.    Possession  of  encyclo- 


218 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


paedic  knowledge  is  a  virtue  which  Spencer  sometimes  exag- 
gerates into  a  vice,  and  a  vice  which  some  of  his  disciples  too 
seldom  reduce  to  the  proportions  of  a  virtue. 

To  the  economic  truism  I  will  give  a  little  more  attention, 
its  irrelevancy  being  less  apparent.  Here  it  is  :  "  The  exist- 
ence of  interest  depends,  of  course,  primarily  upon  the  exist- 
ence of  private  property."  I  call  this  a  truism,  though  the 
word  "  primarily  "  introduces  an  element  of  error.  If  we  are 
to  inquire  upon  what  interest  primarily  depends,  we  shall  start 
upon  an  endless  journey  into  the  realm  of  metaphysics.  But 
without  entering  that  realm  we  certainly  can  go  farther  back 
in  the  series  than  private  property  and  find  that  interest 
depends  still  more  remotely  upon  the  existence  of  human 
beings  and  even  of  the  universe  itself.  However,  interest 
undoubtedly  depends  upon  private  property,  and,  if  this  fact 
had  any  significance,  I  should  not  stop  to  trifle  over  the  word 
"  primarily."  But  it  has  no  significance.  It  only  seems  to 
have  significance  because  it  carries,  or  seems  to  be  supposed 
to  carry,  the  implication  that,  if  private  property  is  a  necessary 
condition  of  interest,  interest  is  a  necessary  result  of  private 
property.  The  inference,  of  course,  is  wholly  unwarranted  by- 
logic,  but  that  it  is  intended  appears  from  a  remark  almost 
immediately  following  :  "  Expectations  have  been  entertained 
that  it  [interest]  will  eventually  become  zero  ;  but  this  stage 
will  probably  be  reached  only  when  economic  products  become 
common  free  property  of  the  human  race."  The  word  "prob- 
ably "  leaves  the  writer,  to  be  sure,  a  small  logical  loophole 
of  escape,  but  it  is  not  expected  that  the  reader  will  notice  it, 
the  emphasis  being  all  in  the  other  direction.  The  reader  is 
expected  to  look  upon  interest  as  a  necessary  result  of  private 
property  simply  because  without  private  property  there  could 
be  no  interest.  Now,  my  hat  sometimes  hangs  upon  a  hook, 
and,  if  there  were  no  hook,  there  could  be  no  hanging  hat  ; 
but  it  by  no  means  follows  that  because  there  is  a  hook  there 
must  be  a  hanging  hat.  Therefore,  if  I  wanted  to  abolish 
hanging  hats,  it  would  be  idle,  irrelevant,  and  illogical  to 
declare  that  I  must  first  abolish  hooks.  Likewise  it  is  idle, 
irrelevant,  and  illogical  to  declare  that  before  interest  can  be 
abolished  private  property  must  be  abolished.  Take  another 
illustration.  If  there  were  no  winter,  water-pipes  would  never 
freeze  up,  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  abolish  winter  to  prevent 
this  freezing.  Human  device  has  succeeded  in  preventing  it 
as  a  general  thing.  Similarly,  without  private  property  there 
would  be  no  borrowing  of  capital  and  therefore  no  interest  ; 
but  it  is  claimed  that,  without  abolishing  private  property,  a 


MONEY   AND  INTKRI.ST. 


human  device — namely,  money  and  banking — will,  if  not  re- 
stricted, prevent  the  necessity  of  borrowing  capital  as  a  gene- 
ral thing,  and  therefore  virtually  abolish  interest  ;  though 
interest  might  still  be  paid  in  extraordinary  cases,  just  as 
water-pipes  still  freeze  up  under  extraordinary  conditions.  Is 
this  claim  true  ?    That  is  the  only  question. 

This  claim  is  met  in  the  single  relevant  sixteenth  of  To- 
day's article, — that  already  referred  to  as  an  economic  error. 
But  it  is  met  simply  by  denial,  which  is  not  disproof.  I  give 
the  writer's  words : 

The  most  popular  fallacy  upon  the  subject  now  is  that  the  rate  of  in- 
terest can  be  lowered  by  increasing  the  amount  of  currency.  What  men 
really  wish  to  borrow  usually  is  capital, — agencies  of  production, — and 
money  is  only  a  means  for  the  transfer  of  these.  The  amount  of  cur- 
rency can  have  no  effect  upon  the  abundance  of  capital,  and  even  an  in- 
crease in  the  abundance  of  capital  does  not  always  lower  the  rate  of 
interest;  this  is  partly  determined  by  the  value  of  capital  in  use. 

This  paragraph,  though  introduced  with  a  rather  nonchalant 
air,  seems  to  have  been  the  objective  point  of  the  entire  article. 
All  the  rest  was  apparently  written  to  furnish  an  occasion  for 
voicing  the  excessively  silly  notion  that  "  the  amount  of  cur- 
rency can  have  no  effect  upon  the  abundance  of  capital."  As 
I  have  already  said,  to  show  how  silly  it  is,  it  is  only  necessary 
to  slightly  change  the  wording  of  the  phrase.  Let  it  be  stated 
thus  :  "The  abolition  of  currency  can  have  no  effect  upon  the 
abundance  of  capital."  Of  course,  if  the  former  statement  is 
true,  the  latter  follows.  But  the  latter  is  ma7iifestly  absurd, 
and  hence  the  former  is  false.  To  affirm  it  is  to  affirm  that 
currency  does  not  facilitate  the  distribution  of  wealth  ;  for  if 
it  does,  then  it  increases  the  effective  demand  for  wealth,  and 
hence  the  production  of  wealth,  and  hence  the  abundance 
of  capital.  It  is  true  that  "an  increase  in  the  abundance 
of  capital  does  not  always  lower  the  rate  of  interest."  An 
extra  horse  attached  to  a  heavy  load  does  not  always  move 
the  load.  If  the  load  is  heavy  enough,  two  extra  horses  will 
be  required  to  move  it.  But  it  is  always  the  tendency  of 
the  first  extra  horse  to  move  it,  whether  he  succeeds  or  not. 
In  the  same  way,  increase  of  capital  always  tends  to  lower 
interest  up  to  the  time  when  interest  disappears  entirely. 
But  though  increased  capital  lowers  interest  and  increased 
currency  increases  capital,  increased  currency  also  acts  directly 
in  lowering  interest  before  it  has  increased  the  amount  of 
capital.  It  is  here  that  the  editor  of  To-day  seems  to  show 
unfamiliarity  with  the  position  of  the  opponents  of  interest. 
It  is  true  that  what  men  really  wish  to  get  is  capital, — the 


220 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


agencies  of  production.  And  it  is  precisely  because  money- 
is  "a  means  for  the  transfer  of  these  "  that  the  ability  to  issue 
money  secured  by  their  own  property  would  make  it  unneces- 
sary for  them  to  borrow  these  agencies  by  enabling  them  to 
buy  them.  This  raises  a  question  which  I  have  asked  hun- 
dreds of  times  of  defenders  of  interest  and  which  has  invari- 
ably proved  a  "  poser."  I  will  now  put  it  to  the  editor  of 
To-day.  A  is  a  farmer  owning  a  farm.  He  mortgages  his 
farm  to  a  bank  for  $1,000,  giving  the  bank  a  mortgage  note 
for  that  sum  and  receiving  in  exchange  the  bank's  notes 
for  the  same  sum,  which  are  secured  by  the  mortgage.  With 
the  bank-notes  A  buys  farming  tools  of  B.  The  next  day  B 
uses  the  notes  to  buy  of  C  the  materials  used  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  tools.  The  day  after,  C  in  turn  pays  them  to  D  in 
exchange  for  something  that  he  needs.  At  the  end  of  a  year, 
after  a  constant  succession  of  exchanges,  the  notes  are  in  the 
hands  of  Z,  a  dealer  in  farm  produce.  He  pays  them  to  A, 
who  gives  in  return  $1,000  worth  of  farm  products  which  he 
has  raised  during  the  year.  Then  A  carries  the  notes  to  the 
bank,  receives  in  exchange  for  them  his  mortgage  note,  and 
the  bank  cancels  the  mortgage.  Now,  in  this  whole  circle  of 
transactions,  has  there  been  any  lending  of  capital  ?  If  so, 
who  was  the  lender  ?  If  not,  who  is  entitled  to  any  interest  ? 
I  call  upon  the  editor  of  To-day  to  answer  this  question.  It 
is  needless  to  assure  him  that  it  is  vital. 


"  TO-DAY'S  "  EXCELLENT  FOOLING. 

[Liberty,  August  16,  1890.] 

To-day  s  rejoinder  to  my  criticism  of  its  article  on  interest 
is  chiefly  remarkable  as  an  exhibition  of  dust-throwing.  In 
the  art  of  kicking  up  a  dust  the  editor  is  an  expert.  When- 
ever he  is  asked  an  embarrassing  question,  he  begins  to  show 
his  skill  in  this  direction.  He  reminds  one  of  the  clown  at 
the  circus  when  "stumped"  by  the  ring-master  to  turn  a 
double  somersault  over  the  elephant's  back.  He  prances  and 
dances,  jabbers  and  gyrates,  quotes  Latin  forwards  and  Greek 
backwards,  declaims  in  the  style  of  Dr.  Johnson  to  the  fish- 
wife, sings  algebraical  formulae  to  the  music  of  the  band, 
makes  faces,  makes  puns,  and  makes  an  excellent  fool  of  him- 
self ;  and  when  at  the  end  of  all  this  enormous  activity  he 
slyly  slips  between  the  elephant's  legs  instead  of  leaping  over 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


721 


his  back,  the  hilarious  crowd,  if  it  does  not  forget  his  failure 
to  perform  the  prescribed  feat,  at  least  good-humoredly  for- 
gives it.  But  I  am  not  so  good-natured.  I  admit  that,  as  a 
clown,  I  find  the  editor  interesting,  but  his  performance,  ap- 
propriate enough  in  a  Barnum  circus  ring,  is  out  of  place  in 
the  economic  arena.  So  I  propose  to  ignore  his  three  pages 
of  antics  and  note  only  his  ten-line  slip  between  the  elephant's 
legs,  or,  laying  metaphor  aside,  his  evasion  of  my  question. 

I  had  challenged  him  to  point  out  any  lending  of  capital  in 
a  typical  banking  transaction  which  I  had  described.  He  re- 
sponds by  asking  me  to  define  capital.  This  is  the  slip,  the 
evasion,  the  postponement  of  the  difficulty.  He  knows  that, 
if  he  can  draw  me  off  into  a  discussion  of  the  nature  of  capital, 
there  will  be  an  admirable  opportunity  for  more  clownish ness, 
since  there  is  no  point  in  political  economy  that  lends  itself 
more  completely  to  the  sophist's  art  than  this.  But  I  am  not 
to  be  turned  aside.  I  stick  to  my  question.  In  regard  to  the 
notion  of  capital  the  editor  of  To-day  will  find  me,  so  far 
as  the  immediate  question  at  issue  is  connected  with  it,  the 
most  pliable  man  in  the  world.  I  will  take  the  definition,  if 
he  likes,  that  was  given  in  the  previous  article  in  To-day. 
There  it  was  said  that  money  was  one  thing  and  capital  an- 
other ;  that  capital  consists  of  the  agencies  of  production, 
while  money  is  only  a  means  for  the  transfer  of  these  ;  that 
what  men  really  want  is  not  money,  but  capita/ ;  that  it  is  for 
the  use  of  capital  that  interest  is  paid  ;  and  that  this  interest, 
this  price  for  the  use  of  capital,  lowers,  generally  speaking,  as 
capital  becomes  plentier,  and  probably  cannot  disappear  un- 
less abundance  of  capital  shall  reach  the  extreme  of  common 
property.  Now  I  have  shown  (at  least  I  shall  so  claim  until 
my  question  is  answered)  that  in  the  most  ordinary  form  of 
transaction  involving  interest — namely,  the  discounting  of 
notes — there  is  absolutely  no  lending  of  capital  in  the  sense 
in  which  capital  was  used  in  To-dafs  first  article,  and  the 
consequence,  of  course,  is  that  that  defence  of  interest  which 
regards  it  as  payment  for  the  use  of  capital  straightway  falls  to 
the  ground.  But  if  the  editor  of  To-day  does  not  like  the 
view  of  capital  that  was  given  in  the  article  criticised,  he  may 
take  some  other;  I  am  perfectly  willing.  He  may  make  a  defi- 
nition of  his  own.  Whatever  it  may  be,  I,  for  the  time  being 
and  for  the  purposes  of  this  argument,  shall  say  "  Amen  "  to  it. 
And  after  that  I  shall  again  press  the  question  whether,  in  the 
transaction  which  I  described,  there  was  any  lending  of  any- 
thing whatever.  And  if  he  shall  then  answer,  as  a  paragraph 
in  his  latest  article  indicates,  "Yes,  the  bank  lent  its  notes  to 


222 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


the  farmer,"  I  shall  show  conclusively  that  the  bank  did 
nothing  of  the  kind.  If  I  successfully  maintain  this  conten- 
tion, then  it  will  be  demonstrated  that  the  interest  paid  in  the 
transaction  specified  was  not  paid  for  the  use  of  anything 
whatever,  but  was  a  tax  levied  by  monopoly  and  nothing  else. 

Meantime  it  is  comforting  to  reflect  that  my  labor  has  not 
been  entirely  in  vain.  As  a  consequence  of  my  criticism 
of  To-day's  article  on  interest,  the  editor  has  disowned  it 
(though  it  appeared  unsigned  and  in  editorial  type),  charac- 
terized it  as  "  trivial "  (heaven  knows  it  had  the  air  of  grav- 
ity !),  and  squarely  contradicted  its  chief  doctrinal  assertion. 
This  assertion  was  that  "  the  amount  of  currency  can  have  no 
effect  upon  the  abundance  of  capital."  It  is  contradicted  in 
these  terms  :  "  Evidently  money  is  a  necessary  element  in  the 
existing  industrial  plexus,  and  increase  of  capital  js  dependent 
upon  the  supply  of  a  sufficient  amount  of  money."  After  this 
I  have  hopes. 


GOVERNMENT  AND  VALUE. 

[Liberty,  May  16,  1891.] 

In  a  letter  to  the  London  Herald  of  Anarchy,  Mr.  J. 
Greevz  Fisher  asserts  that  "  government  does  not,  and  never 
can,  fix  the  value  of  gold  or  any  other  commodity,"  and  can- 
not even  affect  such  value  except  by  the  slight  additional  de- 
mand which  it  creates  as  a  consumer.  It  is  true  that  govern- 
ment cannot  fix  the  value  of  a  commodity,  because  its  in- 
fluence is  but  one  of  several  factors  that  combine  to  govern 
value.  But  its  power  to  affect  value  is  out  of  all  proportion  to 
the  extent  of  its  consumption.  Government's  consumption  of 
commodities  is  an  almost  infinitesimal  influence  upon  value  in 
comparison  with  its  prohibitory  power.  One  of  the  chief  fac- 
tors in  the  constitution  of  value  is,  as  Mr.  Fisher  himself  states, 
utility  ;  and  as  long  as  governments  exist,  utility  is  largely  de- 
pendent upon  their  arbitrary  decrees.  When  government  pro- 
hibits the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor,  does  it  not  thereby 
reduce  the  value  of  everything  that  is  used  in  such  manufact- 
ure and  sale  ?  If  government  were  to  allow  theatrical  per- 
formances on  Sundays,  would  not  the  value  of  every  building 
that  contains  a  theatre  rise  ?  Have  not  we,  here  in  America, 
just  seen  the  McKinley  bill  change  the  value  of  nearly  every 
article  that  the  people  use  ?    If  government  were  to  decree 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


223 


that  all  plates  shall  be  made  of  tin,  would  not  the  value  of  tin 
rise  and  the  value  of  china  fall  ?  Unquestionably.  Well,  a 
precisely  parallel  thing  occurs  when  government  decrees  that 
all  money  shall  be  made  of  or  issued  against  gold  or  silver  ; 
these  metals  immediately  take  on  an  artificial,  government- 
created  value,  because  of  the  new  use  which  arbitrary  power 
enables  them  to  monopolize,  and  all  other  commodities,  which 
are  at  the  same  time  forbidden  to  be  put  to  this  use,  corre- 
spondingly lose  value.  How  absurd,  then,  in  view  of  these 
indisputable  facts,  to  assert  that  government  can  affect  values 
only  in  the  ratio  of  its  consumption  !  And  yet  Mr.  Fisher 
makes  this  assertion  the  starting-point  of  a  lecture  to  the  editor 
of  the  Herald  of  Anarchy  delivered  in  that  dogmatic,  know- 
it-all  style  which  only  those  are  justified  in  assuming  who 
can  sustain  their  statements  by  facts  and  logic. 


THE  POWER  OF  GOVERNMENT  OVER  VALUES. 

\Liberty,  June  27,  1891.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

In  reference  to  your  remarks  upon  my  recent  contribution  to  the  Lon- 
don Herald  of  Anarchy,  dogmatism  of  manner  must  often  be  adopted 
to  avoid  verbosity  ;  it  is  not  necessarily  an  assumption  of  infallibility. 

The  action  of  governments  with  regard  to  gold  is  not  truly  analogous 
in  its  economic  effects  to  the  prohibition  of  theatrical  performances  on 
Sunday.  In  the  last-named  case,  or  in  any  similar  case  which  we  may 
suppose,  the  effect  is  to  diminish  demand  and  to  prolong  or  retard  con- 
sumption. Thus,  if  we  were  prohibited  from  wearing  shoes,  boots,  etc., 
on  Sunday,  or  if  every  seventh  person  were  prevented  from  using  them, 
then  boots  which  now  wear  out  in  six  months  would  last  seven  months, 
and  we  may  suppose  theatres  which  now  last  seven  years  or  seventy  would 
then  be  worn  out  in  six  or  sixty.  The  immediate  effect  of  opening  thea- 
tres on  Sunday  would  probably  be  to  increase  their  value  very  greatly; 
but  eventually  others  would  be  built,  and  competition  would  reduce  the 
previously  enhanced  value.  The  residual  enhancement  of  value  would  be 
that  resulting  from  the  increased  expense  of  producing  the  last  increment 
in  the  number  of  theatres  which  the  market  in  its  altered  circumstances 
could  support.  There  is  good  reason  to  doubt  whether  this  would  be  ap- 
preciable in  the  cases  taken  of  articles  of  considerable  durability.  If  the 
government  could  reduce  the  consumption  of  food-stuffs,  such  as  wheat, 
and  simultaneously  of  all  substitutes,  by  one-seventh,  it  would  be  a  very 
different  matter. 

But  in  the  case  of  gold  the  interference  of  governments  in  the  present 
day  has  little  effect  in  increasing  consumption.  They  do  not  collect  it  to 
consume  it,  but  simply  to  sell  it.  In  this  country,  beyond  specifying  this 
metal  as  the  vehicle  of  value  in  contributing  to  the  revenue,  the  interfer- 
ence appears  to  be  limited  to  a  restriction  of  the  liberty  of  citizens  to  ex- 


224  INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 

change  promises  of  delivery  of  gold  to  bearer  on  demand.  Bank-notes 
(or  bills,  as  they  seem  to  be  called  in  your  country)  may  only  be  issued  by 
certain  bankers,  and  by  them  only  in  a  certain  complex  relation  to  the 
amount  of  gold  they  hold.  But  this  is  only  a  restriction  in  form,  and  not 
in  quantity,  because  checks,  drafts,  and  promissory  notes  other  than  to 
bearer  on  demand  are  issuable  in  unlimited  quantity,  subject  to  certain 
taxes — from  which  the  other  notes  are  not  wholly  exempt — and  are  trans- 
ferable without  further  tax.  What  has  this  to  do  with  the  consumption  of 
gold  ?    Next  to  nothing! 

Now  there  is  no  legal  obstacle,  nothing,  in  fact,  whatever  except  the  in- 
conveniences of  bulk,  fluctuation  of  value,  and  other  inherent  defects,  to 
prevent  the  introduction  and  circulation  of  promises  of  wheat,  cotton,  oil, 
iron,  or  other  commodity.  This  would  not  have  any  material  effect  upon 
the  consumption,  production,  cost,  or  value  of  these  commodities.  Spec- 
ulative sales  of  1 4  futures "  tend  on  the  whole  to  steady  values  and  to 
diminish  the  frequency  aud  the  intensity  of  gluts  and  famines. 

Gold  and  silver  are  not  used  (in  the  sense  of  being  consumed)  by  their 
circulation.  They  are  merely  conveyed,  transferred,  and  exchanged  more 
frequently.  The  fact  that  they  are  so  often  bought  by  people  who  do  not 
themselves  require  to  use  them  is  not  unique.  Every  merchant  does  the 
same  with  the  commodity  to  which  he  devotes  his  attention.* 

The  peculiarity  is  that  the  trade  in  gold  is  familiar  to  every  one.  The 
portability,  divisibility,  and  recognizability  of  this  substance  force  it  upon 
the  attention  of  every  one  who  avails  himself  of  the  services  of  others. 
The  production  and  circulation  of  contracts  for  its  future  delivery  are  not 
unique.  This  is  also  done  in  the  case  of  many  other  commodities.  In  both 
cases  there  is  a  very  great  convenience  and  economy  ;  and  in  both  there  is 
a  very  appreciable  danger.  Any  such  writings  of  individualists  as  may  in 
any  way  give  the  impression  that  the  free  circulation  of  mutual  indebt- 
edness, miscalled  "  mutual  money,"  will  be  free  from  this  element  of 
danger  are  pernicious.  Freedom  to  incur  and  to  exchange  debts  is  ex- 
ceedingly desirable,  but  rather  because  they  will  encourage,  purify,  and 
chasten  the  spirit  of  enterprise  than,  that  they  will  in  themselves  bring 
very  noticeable  economic  gain. 

Apart  from  the  wear  and  tear  involved,  neither  the  government  nor  any 
one  else  consumes  one  ha'penny  worth-more  of  gold  by  reason  of  its  adop- 
tion in  taxation  and  commerce  as  the  most  usual  vehicle  of  value.  Its  use 
for  this  purpose  may  cause  the  world  to  hold  a  larger  stock  than  it  other- 
wise would;  but  this  is  in  every  way  a  benefit,  because  it  steadies  its  value. 
If  the  metal  were  neglected,  as  platinum  was  until  recently,  then  famine 
and  glut  might  be  observed.  This  would  greatly  lower  the  utility  of  gold 
as  an  intermediate  exchange  commodity,  and  would  not  help  us  to  devise  a 
substitute.  It  would  throw  upon  every  trade,  including  those  who  sell  their 
own  labor,  a  burden  of  doubt  and  uncertainty  in  estimating  its  fluctua- 
tions. The  evil  that  government  does  by  collecting  needless  millions  is 
immeasurably  greater  than  by  its  so-called  maintenance  of  the  gold  stan- 
dard. Yours  respectfully, 

J.  Greevz  Fisher. 

78  Harrogate  Road,  Leeds,  England. 


*  Division  of  labor  originates  in  people  making  something  they  do  not 
themselves  want.  It  is  further  facilitated  by  selling  this  for  one  special 
commodity  which  is  not  directly  wanted. 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


Dogmatism  can  be  justified  only  by  the  event.  In  its  use 
not  only  does  nothing  succeed  like  success,  but  nothing  suc- 
ceeds but  success.  And  nothing  fails  like  failure.  If  Mr. 
Fisher,  in  addressing  the  Anarchists  upon  finance  as  if  they 
were  babies  and  he  a  giant,  shall  succeed  in  making  his 
assumed  superiority  felt  as  a  reality,  he  will  not  only  be  for- 
given for  his  dogmatism,  but  highly  respected  for  his  knowl- 
edge and  power  ;  but  if  it  shall  appear  that  the  ignorance  and 
weakness  are  on  his  side  rather  than  theirs,  he  will  be  covered 
not  only  with  confusion  by  his  error,  but  with  ridicule  by  the 
collapse  of  his  pretension.  It  is  only  just,  however,  to  say 
that  a  comparison  of  his  letter  to  Liberty  with  his  letter  to 
the  Herald  of  Anarchy  shows  progress  in  the  direction  of 
modesty. 

Already  Mr.  Fisher's  pride  has  been  followed  by  a  fall. 
The  central  position  taken  by  him  at  the  start  that  govern- 
ment cannot  affect  the  value  of  gold  or  any  other  commodity 
except  by  the  slight  additional  demand  which  it  creates  as  a 
consumer  he  has  been  forced  to  abandon  at  the  first  onslaught. 
If  government  were  to  allow  the  opening  of  theatres  on  Sun- 
day, it  would  not  thereby  become  a  consumer  of  theatres  itself 
(at  least  not  in  the  economic  sense;  for,  in  the  United  States 
at  any  rate,  our  governors  always  go  to  the  theatre  as  "  dead- 
heads "),  and  yet  Mr.  Fisher  admits  that  in  such  a  case  the 
value  of  theatres  would  immediately  rise  very  greatly.  This 
admission  is  an  abandonment  of  the  position  taken  at  first  so 
confidently,  and  no  other  consideration  can  make  it  anything 
else.  The  fact  that  competition  would  soon  arise  to  reduce 
the  value  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  for  a  time  this  action  of 
government  would  materially  raise  it,  which  Mr.  Fisher  orig- 
inally declared  an  impossibility.  But  even  if  such  a  plea  had 
any  pertinence,  it  could  be  promptly  destroyed  by  a  slight  ex- 
tension of  the  hypothesis.  Suppose  government,  in  addition 
to  allowing  the  theatres  now  existing  to  open  on  Sunday, 
were  to  prohibit  the  establishment  of  any  additional  theatres. 
Then  the  value  would  not  only  go  up,  but  stay  up.  It  is 
hardly  necessary  to  argue  the  matter  further  ;  Mr.  Fisher 
undoubtedly  sees  that  he  is  wrong.  The  facts  are  too  palpable 
and  numerous.  Why,  since  my  comment  of  a  month  ago  on 
Mr.  Fisher's  position,  it  has  transpired  that  the  cost  of  making 
twist  drills  in  the  United  States  has  been  increased  five  hundred 
and  twenty  per  cent,  by  the  McKinley  bill.  Government  cannot 
affect  value,  indeed! 

In  the  paragraph  to  which  Mr.  Fisher's  letter  is  a  rejoinder 
I  said  that  "  when  government  decrees  that  all  money  shall 


226 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


be  made  of  or  issued  against  gold  or  silver,  these  metals  imme- 
diately take  on  an  artificial,  government-created  value,  because 
of  the  new  use  which  arbitrary  power  enables  them  to  monop- 
olize."   Mr.  Fisher  meets  this  by  attempting  to  belittle  the 
restrictions  placed  upon  the  issue  of  paper  money,  as  if  all 
vitally  necessary  .liberty  to  compete  with  the  gold-bugs  were 
even  now  allowed.    Let  me  ask  my  opponent  one  question. 
Does  the  law  of  England  allow  citizens  to  form  a  bank  for  the 
issue  of  paper  money  against  any  property  that  they  may  see 
fit  to  accept  as  security  ;  said  bank  perhaps  owning  no  specie 
whatever  ;  the  paper  money  not  redeemable  in  specie  except 
at  the  option  of  the  bank;  the  customers  of  the  bank  mutually 
pledging  themselves  to  accept  the  bank's  paper  in  lieu  of  gold 
or  silver  coin  of  the  same  face  value  ;  the  paper  being  re- 
deemable only  at  the  maturity  of  the  mortgage  notes,  and 
then  simply  by  a  return  of  said  notes  and  a  release  of  the 
mortgaged  property, — is  such  an  institution,  I  ask,  allowed  by 
the  law  of  England?    If  it  is,  then  I  have  only  to  say  that  the 
working  people  of  England  are  very  great  fools  not  to  take 
advantage  of  this  inestimable  liberty,  that  the  editor  of  the 
Herald  of  Anarchy  and  his  comrades  have  indeed  nothing  to 
complain  of  in  the  matter  of  finance,  and  that  they  had  better 
turn  their  attention  at  once  to  the  organization  of  such  banks  as 
that  which  I  have  just  described.    But  I  am  convinced  that 
Mr.  Fisher  will  have  to  answer  that  these  banks  are  illegal  in 
England;  and  in  that  case  I  tell  him  again  that  the  present  value 
of  gold  is  a  monopoly  value  sustained  by  the  exclusive  mone- 
tary privilege  given  it  by  government.    It  may  be  true,  as  Mr. 
Fisher  says,  that  just  as  much  gold  would  be  used  if  it  did  not 
possess  this  monopoly.    But  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
question.    Take  the  illustration  that  I  have  already  used  in 
this  discussion  when  I  said:    "  If  government  were  to  decree 
that  all  plates  shall  be  made  of  tin,  would  not  the  value  of 
tin  rise  and  the  value  of  china  fall?"    Now,  if  the  supply  of 
tin  were  limited,  and  if  nearly  all  the  tin  were  used  m  making 
plates,  and  if  tin  had  no  other  use  of  great  significance,  it  is 
quite  conceivable  that,  if  the  decree  prohibiting  the  use  of 
china  in  making  plates  should  be  withdrawn,  the  same  amount 
of  tin  might  continue  to  be  used  for  the  same  purpose  as 
before,  and  yet  the  value  of  tin  would  fall  tremendously  m 
consequence  of  the  admitted  competition  of  china.    And  sim- 
ilarly, if  all  property  were  to  be  admitted  to  competition  with 
gold'  in  the  matter  of  representation  in  the  currency,  it  is  pos- 
sible that  the  same  amount  of  gold  would  still  be  used  as 


MONEY    AM)  INTEREST. 


2j; 


money,  but  its  value  would  decrease  notably, — would  fall, 
that  is  to  say,  from  its  abnormal,  artificial,  government-created 
value,  to  its  normal,  natural,  open-market  value. 


FREE  TRADE  IN  BANKING. 

[Liberty,  July  n,  1891.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

It  is  much  to  be  regretted  when  Liberty  is  wounded  in  the  house  of  her 
friends.  This  is  caused  by  those  who  regard  liberty  as  a  panacea  for  every 
ill,  or  perhaps  it  would  be  better  to  say  who  regard  the  inevitable  vicissi- 
tudes and  inequalities  of  life  as  evil.  There  is  no  more  philosophical 
reason  for  believing  that  all  men  can  be  equal,  rich,  and  happy  than  for 
believing  that  all  animals  can  be  equal,  including,  of  course,  that  they 
should  all  be  equal  to  men. 

Freedom  is  exceeding  fair.  It  is  by  far  the  most  excellent  way.  Under 
liberty  the  very  best  possible  results  in  every  department  of  human  activ- 
ity, including  commerce,  will  be  obtained.  But  it  won't  make  fools  suc- 
cessful. One  of  its  recommendations  is  that  folly  will  more  surely  be 
remedied  by  getting  its  medicine  than  by  the  grandmotherly  plan  of  pro- 
tection in  all  directions.  In  many  cases  cure  is  better  than  prevention. 
Little  burns,  we  may  be  sure,  save  many  lives.  (1) 

It  seems  to  be  a  fashion  nowadays  amongst  reformers  to  rail  at  our 
existing  systems  of  currency  and  to  regard  government  interference  here 
as  greater  and  more  pernicious  than  in  many  other  matters.  The  truth, 
however,  is  that  there  is  scarcely  anything  which  more  completely  illus- 
trates the  powerlessness  of  government  to  establish  code  in  opposition  to 
custom  than  the  unvarying  failure  of  unsound  currency  enactments,  and 
the  concomitant  dwindling  of  monetary  law  into  a  mere  specification  of 
truisms,  a  registration  of  established  practice,  or  a  system  of  licensing 
certain  individuals  to  carry  on  certain  kinds  of  trade.  But  all  these  are 
evils  not  perculiar  to  the  money  trade,  nor  do  they  here  produce  more  in- 
jurious results  than  in  the  cases  of  priests,  doctors,  accountants,  lawyers, 
engineers,  and  other  privileged  faculties.  (2) 

Schemes  to  bring  about  the  abolition  of  interest,  especially  when  the  au- 
thors promulgate  this  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  free  trade  in  banking, 
are  pernicious,  and  in  their  ultimate  effect  reactionary.  Low  rates  of  in- 
terest depend  upon  the  magnitude  of  the  mass  of  capital  competing  for  in- 
vestment rather  than  upon  the  presence  or  absence  of  the  really  trifling  in- 
terference of  governments  with  the  modes  in  which  debt  may  be  incurred. 
What  is  called  free  trade  in  banking  actually  means  only  unlimited  liberty 
to  create  debt.  It  is  the  erroneous  labelling  of  debt  as  money  which  be- 
gets most  of  the  fallacies  of  currency-faddists,  both  coercionary  and  libera- 
tionist.  (3) 

The  principal  error  of  the  former  is  that  they  advocate  schemes  for  the 
growth  and  preferential  marketing  of  government  debt.  The  ignis  fatuus 
of  some  of  the  latter  is  a  vision  of  people  both  using  their  property  and 
pledging  it  at  the  same  time  ;  (4)  while  some  go  so  far  as  to  dream  of 
symbolical  money  of  indefinite  value.  Thus  we  have  Mr.  Alfred  B. 
Westrup  contributing  "  Citizens'  Money  "  and  "  The  Financial  Problem, 


228 


INSTEAD  OF   A  V.OOK. 


both  of  which  tacitly  attempt  to  expound  a  method  to  enable  every  one  to 
get  into  debt  and  keep  there.  (5) 

The  introduction  to  the  first-named  essay  seems  by  implication  to  assert 
that  the  price  of  gold  is  too  high,  though  no  attempt  is  made  to  show  how 
displacing  it  from  currency  would  reduce  the  price  as  long  as  its  cost  and 
utility  remain  what  they  now  are  ;  while  the  author  himself  appears  to 
think  that  money  can  be  made  very  much  more  plentiful  and  yet  maintain 
its  value,  although  he  is  contending  that  this  value  depends  upon  monop- 
oly or  scarcity.  The  last-named  essay  plainly  assumes  that  by  some  such 
scheme  poverty  can  be  abolished.  (6) 

Banking  is  not  the  only  financial  operation  in  which  government  inter- 
feres. In  the  case  of  insurance  companies,  benefit  societies,  limited  liabil- 
ity corporations,  partnerships,  trusts,  insolvencies,  and  hundreds  of  other 
ways  government  is  continually  interfering.  Most  of  this  interference  is 
well  meant.  Most,  if  not  all,  of  it  is  actually  injurious  in  itself,  apart  from 
the  waste,  the  jobbery,  and  the  imbecility  of  officialism  it  involves.  These 
concomitant  evils,  though  far  greater  than  those  directly  resulting  from 
the  interference,  had  better  for  the  time  being  be  left  out  of  sight.  Their 
treatment  belongs  to  the  general  subject  of  liberty,  and  they  only  incident- 
ally pertain  to  the  financial  interference  of  government,  as  they  do  to  'all 
its  other  interference.  Ignoring  then  the  saving  in  cost,  the  immediate 
effect  of  the  total  abstention  of  government  from  its  protection  of  the  pub- 
lic from  financial  folly  and  roguery  would  be  that  a  great  crop  of  fresh 
schemes,  bargains,  and  arrangements  would  offer  themselves  to  those  de- 
sirous of  entrusting  any  of  their  wealth  to  the  management  of  others.  A 
very  large  proportion  of  these  schemes — possibly  the  majority — would  be 
unsound.  (7)  Amongst  the  unsound,  unless  its  expounders  grievously 
misrepresent  it,  would  undoubtedly  be  found  such  mutual  banking  as  is 
proposed  by  Mr.  Westrup.  He  is  altogether  on  a  wrong  tack.  His 
whole  talk  is  about  money;  but  this  term  in  his  mouth  means  indebtedness, 
trust,  credit,  paper  instruments  binding  some  one  to  deliver  something. 
Now,  credit  is  not  a  representative  of  wealth,  as  Mr.  Westrup  so  con- 
stantly declares.  Mr.  Westrup's  money  is  a  representative  of  a  promise 
or  debt.  It  may  in  many  cases,  as  a  matter  of  history,  show  that  A  has 
entrusted  certain  wealth  to  B  ;  but  it  does  not  guarantee  that  B  has  pre- 
served it,  and  still  less  does  it  assure  the  holder  that  B  can  at  call  deliver  or 
replace  the  borrowed  articles,  or  any  equal  number  of  similar  articles,  or 
an  equivalent  value  in  some  other  articles.  (8)  As  Mr.  Donisthorpe  insists 
in  his  "  Principles  of  Plutology  "  (p.  136):  "  There  is  [at  each  moment] 
a  certain  amount  of  every  valuable  commodity  in  existence,  neither  more 
nor  less  ;  nor  can  it  be  increased  by  a  single  atom  though  the  whole  pop- 
ulation suddenly,  as  if  by  inspiration,  began  craving  and  yearning  for  it." 
(9)  Again,  what  is  there  to  show  that  any  necessity  exists,  as  Mr.  West- 
rup asserts,  for  enabling  all  wealth  to  be  represented  by  money  ?  If  I  give  a 
man  a  loaf  for  sweeping  my  door-step,  the  loaf  does  not  represent  the 
work,  nor  does  the  work  represent  the  loaf.  All  we  know  is  that  I  desire 
the  sweeping  more  than  I  desire  the  loaf,  and  the  laborer  desires  the  loaf; 
more  than  his  ease  or  idleness.  If  I  give  a  guinea  for  a  hat,  this  guinea 
does  not  represent  the  particular  hat  or  any  hat.  It  does  not  represent  it 
while  in  my  possession  before  the  exchange,  nor  in  the  hatter's  possession 
after  the  exchange.  Gold  is  valuable  ;  it  does  not  merely  represent  value. 
The  value  represents  an  estimate  of  the  comparative  labor  necessary  to 
produce  the  last  increment  needful  to  replenish  the  stock  of  gold  at  a  rate 
equivalent  to  its  consumption, — this  consumption  depending  upon  the 
comparative  utility  of  gold  in  relation  to  its  own  value  and  that  of  other 


MONEY  AND  INTEREST. 


commodities.  Or  at  a  given  hat-shop  it  represents  an  estimate  of  the  cost 
of  bringing  as  much  more  gold  to  the  place  as  equivalent  to  the  cost  of 
bringing  another  hat  to  the  shop.  (10) 

Mr.  Westrup's  fallacious  analysis  of  commerce  dogs  his  steps  in  every 
process  of  his  reasoning.  The  gravest  evils  of  the  interference  of  govern- 
ment in  monetary  matters  are  little  more  than  its  cost  and  the  deadening 
influence  of  fancied  protection.  The  reform  which  monetary  liberty  would 
secure  would  not  include  any  redistribution  of  the  products  of  labor.  This 
depends  partly  upon  the  possibility  of  the  laborer  possessing  the  skill  of  a 
speculator  and  of  a  producer  and  exercising  both  at  the  same  time,  and 
partly  upon  the  enormously  disproportionate  share  of  taxation  which  he 
has  to  bear.  These  and  many  other  evils,  in  so  far  as  they  are  increased 
by  government,  depend  not  upon  arbitrary  money,  but  upon  the  arbitrary 
alienation  of  the  substance  of  the  citizen.  It  is  a  most  trivial  incident  that 
the  plunder  is  nominally  priced  in  and  redeemed  by  one  commodity.  The 
evil  is  that  it  should  be  taken.  The  form  makes  but  an  infinitesimal  dif- 
ference. 

Mr.  Westrup  would  do  well  to  ask  himself  these  questions,  and,  in  an- 
swering them,  to  assign  the  grounds  upon  which  he  proceeds  in  arriving 
at  the  conclusions,  (u) 

1.  Would  the  value  of  gold  be  (a)  increased  (6)  reduced  by  mutual  bank- 
ing ?    And  what  percentage  ? 

2.  Is  gold  the  only  commodity  produced  and  bought  by  people  who 
don't  want  to  consume  it? 

3.  Would  gold  lose  its  pre-eminence  as  the  commodity  the  value  of  which 
is  most  correctly  estimated,  and  which  it  is  therefore  safest  to  buy  at  market 
value  when  disposing  of  our  own  or  our  purchased  produce  ? 

4.  What  has  the  rate  of  interest  to  do  with  the  net  or  residual  increment 
of  wealth  remaining  as  a  surplus  after  maintaining  the  population  ?  Is 
this  less  in  the  United  Kingdom  where  interest  is  low  than  in  the  United 
States  where  interest  is  high  ? 

5.  How  could  legislation  maintain  the  value  of  gold  if  it  became  as 
abundant  as  copper  ?  Would  the  volume  of  money  then  be  greater  than 
now  ?  Would  the  rate  of  interest  be  affected  by  this  alteration  apart  from 
the  changes  due  to  the  act  of  transition  from  the  present  state  of  dear  gold 
to  the  supposed  state  of  cheap  gold  ? 

6.  How  is  the  voluntary  custom  of  selling  preferentially  for  gold 
a  monopoly  ?  Are  cattle  a  monopoly  where  used  as  a  medium  of  ex- 
change ? 

7.  What  analogy  is  there  between  a  law  to  require  the  exclusive  con- 
sumption of  hand-made  bricks  and  any  laws  specifying  that  the  word 
Dollar  in  a  bond  shall  imply  a  certain  quantity  of  gold  ?  Does  any  govern- 
ment force  anyone  to  consume  gold  in  preference  to  any  other  com- 
modity ?  Does  government  consume  gold  in  constructing  its  offices  and 
defences,  or  does  it  merely  swap  it  off  for  other  commodities  ?  Is  all  silver 
or  gold  in  the  United  States  delivered  to  government  as  fast  as  made, 
or  does  government  purchase  it  in  the  open  market  ? 

Yours,  etc., 

J.  Greevz  Fisher. 

78  Harrogate  Road,  Leeds,  England. 

Pending  the  arrival  of  any  answer  Mr.  Westrup  may  desire 
to  make  to  the  foregoing  criticisms  upon  his  pamphlets,  for 
which  purpose  the  columns  of  Liberty  are  open  to  him,  I  take 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


the  liberty  of  offering  some  comments  as  well  as  answers  to  Mr. 
Fisher's  questions. 

(1)  I  know  of  no  friend  of  liberty  who  regards  it  as  a 
panacea  for  every  ill,  or  claims  that  it  will  make  fools  success- 
ful, or  believes  that  it  will  make  all  men  equal,  rich,  and 
perfectly  happy.  The  Anarchists,  it  is  true,  believe  that  under 
liberty  the  laborer's  wages  will  buy  back  his  product,  and  that 
this  will  make  men  more  nearly  equal,  will  insure  the  indus- 
trious and  the  prudent  against  poverty,  and  will  add  to  human 
happiness.  But  between  the  fictitious  claims  which  Mr. 
Fisher  scouts  and  the  real  claims  which  the  Anarchists  assert 
it  is  easy  to  see  the  vast  difference. 

(2)  I  do  not  understand  how  "the  unvarying  failure  of 
unsound  currency  enactments "  makes  the  interference  of 
government  with  finance  seem  less  pernicious.  In  fact,  it 
drives  me  to  precisely  the  opposite  conclusion.  In  the  phrase, 
"  concomitant  dwindling  of  monetary  law  into  a  mere  specifi- 
cation of  truisms,"  Mr.  Fisher  repeats  hi§  attempt,  of  which  I 
complained  in  the  last  issue  of  Liberty,  to  belittle  the  restric- 
tions placed  upon  the  issue  of  paper  money.  When  he  has 
answered  the  question  which  I 'have  asked  him  regarding  the 
English  banking  laws,  we  can  discuss  the  matter  more  intelli- 
gently. Meanwhile  it  is  futile  to  try  to  make  a  monopoly  seem 
less  than  a  monopoly  by  resorting  to  such  a  circumlocution  as 
"  system  of  licensing  individuals  to  carry  on  certain  kinds  of 
trades,"  or  to  claim  that  the  monopoly  of  a  tool  not  only 
common  but  indispensable  to  all  trades  is  not  more  injurious 
than  the  monopoly  of  a  tool  used  by  only  one  trade  or  a  few 
trades. 

(3)  It  is  true  that  if  the  mass  of  capital  competing  for 
investment  were  increased,  the  rate  of  interest  would  fall.  But 
it  is  not  true  that  scarcity  of  capital  is  the  only  factor  that 
keeps  up  the  rate  of  interest  ?  If  I  were  free  to  use  my  capital 
directly  as  a  basis  of  credit  or  currency,  the  relief  from  the 
necessity  of  borrowing  additional  capital  from  others  would 
decrease  the  borrowing  demand,  and  therefore  the  rate  of 
interest.  And  if,  as  the  Anarchists  claim,  this  freedom  to  use 
capital  as  a  basis  of  credit  should  give  an  immense  impetus  to 
business,  and  consequently  cause  an  immense  demand  for 
labor,  and  consequently  increase  productive  power,,  and  con- 
sequently augment  the  amount  of  capital,  here  another  force 
would  be  exercised  to  lower  the  rate  of  interest  and  cause  it  to 
gradually  vanish.  Free  trade  in  banking  does  not  mean  only 
unlimited  liberty  to  create  debt;  it  means  also  vastly  increased 
ability  to  meet  debt:  and,  so  accompanied,  the  liberty  to 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


23  f 


create  debt  is  one  of  the  greatest  blessings.  It  is  not  erroneous 
to  label  evidence  of  debt  as  money.  As  Col.  Wm.  B.  Greene  well 
said:  "That  is  money  which  does  the  work  of  the  tool  money." 
When  evidence  of  debt  circulates  as  a  medium  of  exchange,  to 
all  intents  and  purposes  it  is  money.  But  this  is  of  small  con- 
sequence. The  Anarchists  do  not  insist  on  the  word  "  money." 
Suppose  we  call  such  evidence  of  debt  currency  (and  surely  it 
is  currency),  what  then  ?  How  does  this  change  of  name 
affect  the  conclusions  of  the  "  currency-faddists  "  ?  Not  in 
the  least,  as  far  as  I  can  see.  By  the  way,  it  is  not  becoming 
in  a  man  who  has,  not  simply  one  bee  in  his  bonnet,  but  a 
whole  swarm  of  them,  to  talk  flippantly  of  the  "fads  "  of  men 
whose  lives  afford  unquestionable  evidence  of  their  earnest- 
ness. 

(4)  Mr.  Fisher  seems  to  think  it  inherently  impossible  to  use 
one's  property  and  at  the  same  time  pledge  it.  But  what  else 
happens  when  a  man,  after  mortgaging  his  house,  continues  to 
live  in  it  ?  This  is  an  actual  every-day  occurrence,  and  mutual 
banking  only  seeks  to  make  it  possible  on  easier  terms, — the 
terms  that  will  prevail  under  competition  instead  of  the  terms 
that  do  prevail  under  monopoly.  The  man  who  calls  this 
reality  an  ignis  fatuus  must  be  either  impudent  or  ignorant. 
Unfortunately  it  is  true  that  some  believers  in  mutual  banking 
do  "dream  of  symbolical  money  of  indefinite  value,"  but 
none  of  the  standard  expositions  of  the  subject  offer  any  such 
fallacy  ;  and  it  is  with  these  that  Mr.  Fisher  must  deal  if  he 
desires  to  overthrow  the  mutual  banking  idea. 

(5)  Mr.  Westrup's  method,  if  I  understand  it,  would  not 
"  enable  every  one  to  get  into  debt  and  keep  there,"  but  rather 
to  get  into  debt  and  out  again,  greatly  to  the  advantage  of  the 
borrower  and  of  society  generally.  Mr.  Westrup  does  not 
contemplate  the  issue  of  bank-notes  against  individual  notes 
that  never  mature. 

(6)  Mr.  Fisher,  in  his  remark  that  "no  attempt  is  made  to 
show  how  displacing  gold  from  currency  would  reduce  the 
price  as  long  as  its  cost  and  utility  remain  what  they  now  are," 
is  no  less  absurd  than  he  would  be  if  he  were  to  say  that  no 
attempt  is  made  to  show  how  displacing  flour  as  an  ingredient 
of  bread  would  reduce  the  price  of  flour  as  long  as  its  cost  and 
utility  remain  what  they  now  are.  The  utility  of  flour  con- 
sists in  the  fact  that  it  is  an  ingredient  of  bread,  and  the  main 
utility  of  gold  consists  in  the  fact  that  it  is  used  as  currency. 
To  talk  of  displacing  these  utilities  and  at  the  same  time  keep- 
ing them  what  they  now  are  is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  of 
which  Mr.  Fisher  is  guilty.    But  Mr.  Westrup  is  guilty  of  no 


232 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


contradiction  at  all  in  claiming  that  money  can  be  made  very 
much  more  plentiful  and  yet  maintain  its  value  at  the  same 
time  that  he  contends  that  the  present  value  of  money  is  due 
to  its  monopoly  or  scarcity.  For  to  quote  Colonel  Greene 
again : 

All  money  is  not  the  same  money.  There  is  one  money  of  gold, 
another  of  brass,  another  of  leather,  and  another  of  paper  ;  and  there  is 
a  difference  in  the  glory  of  these  different  kinds  of  money.  There  is  one 
money  that  is  a  commo'dity,  having  its  exchangeable  value  determined  by 
the  law  of  supply  and  demand,  which  money  may  be  called  (though  some- 
what barbarously)  merchandise-money;  as,  for  instance,  gold,  silver,  brass, 
bank-bills,  etc.:  there  is  another  money,  which  is  not  a  commodity, 
whose  exchangeable  value  is  altogether  independent  of  the  law  of  supply 
and  demand,  and  which  may  be  called  mutual  money.  ...  If  ordinary 
bank-bills  represented  specie  actually  existing  in  the  vaults  of  the  bank, 
no  mere  issue  or  withdrawal  of  them  could  effect  a  fall  or  rise  in  the  value 
of  money:  for  every  issue  of  a  dollar-bill  would  correspond  to  the  lock- 
ing-up  of  a  specie  dollar  in  the  banks'  vaults  ;  and  every  cancelling  of  a 
dollar-bill  would  correspond  to  the  issue  by  the  banks  of  a  specie  dollar. 
It  is  by  the  exercise  of  banking  privileges— that  is,  by  the  issue  of  bills 
purporting  to  be,  but  which  are  not,  convertible— that  the  banks  effect  a 
depreciation  in  the  price  of  the  silver  dollar.  It  is  this  fiction  (by  which 
legal  value  is  assimilated  to,  and  becomes,  to  all  business  intents  and 
purposes,  actual  value)  that  enables  bank-notes  to  depreciate  the  silver 
dollar  Substitute  verity  in  the  place  of  fiction,  either  by  permitting  the 
banks  to  issue  no  more  paper  than  they  have  specie  in  their  vaults,  or  by 
effecting  an  entire  divorce  between  bank-paper  and  its  pretended  specie 
basis  and  the  power  of  paper  to  depreciate  specie  is  at  an  end  So  long 
as  the  fiction  is  kept  up,  the  silver  dollar  is  depreciated,  and  tends  to 
emigrate  for  the  purpose  of  travelling  in  foreign  parts  ;  but,  the  moment 
the  fiction  is  destroyed,  the  power  of  paper  over  metal  ceases.  By  its 
intrinsic  nature  specie  is  merchandise,  having  its  value  determined,  as 
such  bv  supply  and  demand  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  paper  money  is  by 
its  intrinsic  nature,  not  merchandise,  but  the  means  whereby  merchandise 
is  exchanged,  and,  as  such,  ought  always  to  be  commensurate  in  quantity 
with  the  amount  of  merchandise  to  be  exchanged,  be  that  amount  great 
or  small     Mutual  money  is  measured  by  specie,  but  is  in  no  way 

ASSIMILATED  TO  IT  |  AND  THEREFORE  ITS  ISSUE  CAN  HAVE  NO  EFFECT 
WHATEVER  TO  CAUSE  A  RISE  OR  FALL  IN  THE  PRICE  OF  THE  PRECIOUS 
METALS. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  important  truths  in  finance,  and 
perfectly  accounts  for  Mr.  Westrup's  position.  When  he  says 
that  money  can  be  made  very  much  more  plentiful  and  yet 
maintain  its  value,  he  is  speaking  of  mutual  money;  when  he 
says  that  the  present  value  of  money  depends  upon  monopoly 
or  scarcity,  he  is  speaking  of  merchandise  money.  _ 

(7)  As  sensibly  might  one  say  to  Mr.  Fisher,  who  is  a  stanch 
opponent  of  government  postal  service,  that  "  the  immediate 
effect  of  the  total  abstention  of  government  from  its  protec- 
tion of  the  public  from  the  roguery  of  private  mail-carriers 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


would  be  that  a  great  crop  of  fresh  schemes  would  offer  them- 
selves to  those  desirous  of  intrusting  any  of  their  letters  to 
others  to  carry.  A  very  large  proportion  of  these  schemes — 
possibly  the  majority — would  be  unsound."  Well,  what  of  it  ? 
Are  we  on  this  account  to  give  up  freedom  ?  No,  says  Mr. 
Fisher.    But,  then,  what  is  the  force  of  the  consideration  ? 

(8)  Mr.  Westrup's  money  not  only  shows  that  A  has  given 
B  a  conditional  title  to  certain  wealth,  but  guarantees  that  this 
wealth  has  been  preserved.  That  is,  it  affords  a  guarantee  so 
nearly  perfect  that  it  is  acceptable.  If  you  take  a  mortgage 
on  a  house  and  the  owner  insures  it  in  your  favor,  the  guaran- 
tee against  loss  by  fire  is  not  perfect,  since  the  insurance  com- 
pany may  fail,  but  it  is  good  enough  for  practical  purposes. 
Similarly,  if  B,  the  bank,  advances  money  to  A  against  a  mort- 
gage on  the  latter's  stock  of  goods,  it  is  within  the  bounds  of 
possibility  that  A  will  sell  the  goods  and  disappear  forever,  but 
he  will  thus  run  the  risk  of  severe  penalties;  and  these  penal- 
ties, coupled  with  B's  caution,  make  a  guarantee  that  prac- 
tically serves.  To  be  sure,  Mr.  Westrup's  money  does  not 
assure  the  holder  that  the  bank  will  deliver  the  borrowed  arti- 
cles on  demand,  but  it  does  assure  him  that  he  can  get  similar 
articles  or  their  equivalents  on  demand  from  any  customers  of 
the  bank  that  have  them  for  sale,  because  all  these  customers 
are  pledged  to  take  the  bank's  notes;  to  say  nothing  of  the  fact 
that  the  bank,  though  not  bound  to  redeem  on  demand,  is 
bound  to  redeem  as  fast  as  the  mortgage  notes  mature. 

(9)  I  perceive  the  perfect  truth  of  Mr.  Donisthorpe's  re- 
mark, but  I  do  not  perceive  its  pertinence  to  the  matter  under 
discussion. 

(10)  Nor  do  I  detect  the  bearing  of  the  truisms  which  Mr. 
Fisher  enunciates  so  solemnly.  They  certainly  do  not  estab- 
lish the  absence  of  any  necessity  for  enabling  all  wealth  to  be 
represented  by  money.  This  necessity  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that,  when  the  monetary  privilege  is  conferred  upon  one  form 
of  wealth  exclusively,  the  people  have  to  obtain  this  form  of 
wealth  at  rates  that  sooner  or  later  send  them  into  bank- 
ruptcy. 

(11)  I  conclude  by  answering  Mr.  Fisher's  questions. 

The  value  of  gold  would  be  reduced  by  mutual  banking, 
because  it  would  thereby  be  stripped  of  that  exclusive  mone- 
tary utility  conferred  upon  it  by  the  State.  The  percentage  of 
this  reduction  no  one  can  tell  in  advance,  any  more  than  he 
can  tell  how  much  whiskey  would  fall  in  price  if  there  were 
unrestricted  competition  in  the  sale  of  it. 

Neither  gold  nor  any  other  commodity  is  bought  by  people 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


who  don't  want  to  consume  it  or  in  some  way  cause  others  to 
consume  it.  Gold  is  in  process  of  consumption  when  it  is  in 
use  as  currency. 

Mutual  banking  might  or  might  not  cause  gold  to  lose  its 
pre-eminence  as  the  most  thoroughly  constituted  value.  If  it 
should  do  so,  then  some  other  commodity  more  constantly  de- 
manded and  uniformly  supplied  would  take  the  place  of  gold 
as  a  standard  of  value.  It  certainly  is  unscientific  to  impart  a 
factitious,  monopoly  value  to  a  commodity  in  order  to  make 
its  value  steady. 

Other  things  being  equal,  the  rate  of  interest  is  inversely 
proportional  to  the  residual  increment  of  wealth,  for  the  reason 
that  a  low  rate  of  interest  (except  when  offered  to  an  already 
bankrupted  people)  makes  business  active,  causes  a  more  uni- 
versal employment  of  labor,  and  thereby  adds  to  productive 
capacity.  The  residual  increment  is  less  in  the  United  King- 
dom, where  interest  is  low,  than  in  the  United  States,  where 
interest  is  high,  because  other  things  are  not  equal.  But  in 
either  country  this  increment  would  be  greater  than  it  now  is 
if  the  rate  of  interest  were  to  fall. 

If  gold  became  as  abundant  as  copper,  legislation,  if  it  chose, 
could  maintain  its  value  by  decreeing  that  we  should  drink 
only  from  gold  goblets.  If  the  value  were  maintained,  the  vol- 
ume of  money  would  be  greater  on  account  of  the  abundance  of 
gold.    This  increase  of  volume  would  lower  the  rate  of  interest. 

A  voluntary  custom  of  selling  preferentially  for  gold  would 
not  be  a  monopoly,  but  there  is  no  such  voluntary  custom. 
Where  cattle  are  used  voluntarily  as  a  medium  of  exchange, 
they  are  not  a  monopoly  ;  but  where  there  is  a  law  that  only 
cattle  shall  be  so  used,  they  are  a  monopoly. 

It  is  not  incumbent  on  Anarchists  to  show  an  analogy  be- 
tween a  law  to  require  the  exclusive  consumption  of  hand- 
made bricks  and  any  law  specifying  that  the  word  Dollar  in  a 
bond  shall  imply  a  certain  quantity  of  gold.  But  they  are 
bound  and  ready  to  show  an  analogy  between  the  first-named 
law  and  any  laws  prohibiting  or  taxing  the  issue  of  notes,  of 
whatever  description,  intended  for  circulation  as  currency. 
Governments  force  people  to  consume  gold,  in  the  sense  that 
they  give  people  no  alternative  but  that  of  abandoning  the  use 
of  money.  When  government  swaps  off  gold  for  other  com- 
modities, it  thereby  consumes  it  in  the  economic  sense.  The 
United  States  government  purchases  its  gold  and  silver.  It 
can  hardly  be  said,  however,  that  it  purchases  silver  in  an  open 
market,  because,  being  obliged  by  law  to  buy  so  many  millions 
each  month,  it  thereby  creates  an  artificial  market. 


MONEY  AND  INTEREST. 


235 


CURRENCY  AND  GOVERNMENT. 

[Liberty,  August  19,  1891.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty : 

There  is  not  the  slightest  analogy  between  allowing  theatres  to  be 
consumed  on  Sundays  and  allowing  silver  or  iron  to  be  sold  on  the  same 
terms  as  gold.  Currency  is  only  buying  and  selling;  it  is  not  consum- 
ing. The  customary  adoption  of  gold  as  currency  and  the  endorsement 
of  this  custom  by  edict  involves  only  a  very  insignificant  increase  in  its 
consumption.  Most  other  commodities  waste  much  more  than  gold  in 
the  processes  of  stocking,  marketing,  and  distributing  from  points  of 
production  to  points  of  consumption.  An  admission  that  if  government 
allowed  an  increase  in  the  consumption  of  theatres  it  would  raise  the 
price,  in  no  way  affects  any  known  proposal  or  enactment  in  regard  to 
gold  as  currency,  because  currency  laws  have  so  little  effect  upon  the 
consumption  of  gold.  There  are  laws  which  possibly  affect  the  value  of 
the  precious  metals.  There  are  such  as  prohibit  mixing  them  freely 
in  all  proportions,  producing  utensils  or  other  articles  of  consumption. 
Thus,  if  the  removal  of  the  present  restrictions  should  lead  to  a  larger 
consumption  of  silver  in  culinary  articles,  this  would  slightly  raise  the 
price  of  silver. 

But  what  is  the  use  of  pursuing  a  false  analogy?  If  government  simply 
facilitated  the  sale  of  theatres,  how  would  that  affect  their  price  in  the 
market?  A  comparison  of  the  effects  of  facilitating  consumption  does 
not  illustrate  the  effects  of  facilitating  exchanges.  It  is  in  the  power 
of  government  to  alter  the  values  of  the  precious  metals  enormously 
within  the  areas  of  their  dominion  by  prohibiting  their  importation  or 
exportation  or  by  duties  or  bounties.  It  will  be  time  enough  to  discuss 
these  matters  when  they  are  proposed.  They  are  not  analogous  to  the 
attempts  to  fix  the  value  of  silver  by  the  schemes  of  the  bi-metallists, 
and  they  have  still  less  analogy  to  the  statutes  which  are  supposed  to 
determine  the  value  of  gold,  but  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  do  nothing  of 
the  sort.  To  state  that  one-fourth  ounce  of  gold  shall  exchange  for  one- 
fourth  ounce  of  gold  is  simply  to  cumber  the  statute  book  with  a 
"  chestnut."  No  government  ever  does  stipulate  "that  all  money  shall 
be  made  of  or  issued  against  gold  or  silver,"  and  it  is  in  supposing 
that  it  does  so  that  some  of  our  comrades  get  wrong.  What  is  called 
money  in  the  above  sentence  means  a  bond  or  promise  to  deliver  coin. 
There  is  nothing  to  prevent  any  one  from  issuing  bonds  or  promises  to 
deliver  something  else,  such  as  petroleum,  pig-iron,  wheat,  lard,  and  so 
on.  If  you  promise  delivery  of  petroleum  on  demand  or  at  a  date  named, 
you  only  discharge  your  bond  by  legally  tendering  the  petroleum  as 
specified.  The  law  of  England  allows  this.  To  prevent  it  would  dis- 
organize all  trade.  What  is  prohibited  is  the  production  and  issue  of 
notes  in  one  particular  form, — namely,  promises  to  pay  gold  to  bearer 
on  demand.  It  is  a  most  vicious  equivoque  to  call  such  instruments 
money,  and  to  exclude  checks,  drafts,  bills,  notes,  whether  drawn  for 
gold,  silver,  iron,  lard,  or  even  labor. 

Space  prohibits  (even  when  a  condensed  statement,  which  will  be  mis- 
named dogmatism,  is  employed)  showing  that  even  under  our  truck  laws 
no  one  is  prohibited  from  using  or  taking  as  a  payment,  flour,  bread, 
meat,  calico,  boots,  and  so  on. 


236 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


The  analogy  as  to  an  enactment  that  all  plates  should  be  made  of  tin  is 
equally  misleading  and  unsound.  Government  does  not  enact  that  all 
marketable  articles  shall  be  made  of  gold,  or  that  all  articles  capable  of 
being  sold  for  future  delivery  shall  be  made  of  gold.  There  is  no  benefit, 
to  this  argument  in  confounding  acts  which  would  seriously  affect  con- 
sumption with  acts  which  have  little  or  no  such  effect.  The  gold  em- 
bodied in  coins  is  marketable  stock;  it  is  not  in  consumption,  as  the  tin 
would  be  if  it  had  a  monopoly  in  plate  production.  We  want  plates  to 
use;  we  carry  coin  always  to  sell.  It  is  not  withdrawn  from  the  market  so 
as  to  raise  its  price,  but  is  constantly  brought  afresh  to  market  so  as 
equally  to  lower  it.  Besides  this,  the  illustration  assumes  and  implies 
that  for  gold  there  is  no  other  use  of  great  significance  but  coin-making. 
If  this  were  so,  then  the  Westrups,  the  Tarns,  and  the  Tuckers  would 
have  the  argument  all  on  their  own  side.  The  fact  is,  however,  that  the 
gold  mines  are  not  kept  open  to  supply  coin,  but  to  supply  the  arts. 

There  is  yet  another  fallacy  in  our  comrades'  position.  It  would  be  no 
monetary  disadvantage  if  the  facts  really  were  as  they  suppose.  If  gold 
were  twice  as  dear,  or  twice  as  cheap,  its  merchants  would  make  just  the 
same  profit,  bankers  and  financiers  would  not  lose  or  gain — neither  would 
anybody  except  the  producers  and  consumers  of  gold.  Grocers'  profits  are 
not  affected  by  the  price  of  sugar,  but  the  growers  and  users  are  both 
vitally  concerned. 

There  would  seem  to  be  nothing  whatever  in  English  law  to  prevent 
the  establishment  of  a  bank  without  any  specie  issuing  inconvertible  paper, 
which  the  customers  mutually  agree  to  accept  at  par  value,  but  there  is 
little  likelihood  such  a  scheme  would  be  workable.  It  would  tax  the 
powers  of  a  very  clever  master  of  legal  or  Anarchical  phraseology  to  spec- 
ify upon  the  notes  the  responsibility  of  each  customer  and  to  preserve  the 
power  of  these  customers  fulfilling  their  agreements.  Before  one  could 
use  such  notes  to  buy  a  breakfast  or  a  railway  ticket  there  would  have  to 
be  a  rather  involved  and  tedious  disquisition  upon  economics.  No  An- 
archist would  propose  to  embody  such  arrangements  in  a  statute  like  our 
limited  liability  laws.  Such  notes  would  therefore  be  simply  of  the  nature 
of  mortgage  bonds,  for  which  there  would  possibly  be  a  market  and  a 
price.    The  price  would  probably  be  below  rather  than  above  par. 

Free  trade  in  gold  and  in  credit  is  desirable.  Its  desirability  is  propor- 
tionate to  the  restrictions  which  exist,  but  these  are  not  very  great  or 
grievous.  The  field  for  their  discussion  opens  only  when  our  comrades' 
present  mists  have  rolled  away.  But  they  bear  no  comparison  with  acts 
for  the  purchase  by  government  of  great  quantities  of  silver,  acts  for 
repairing  worn  gold  coin  at  public  expense,  and,  above  all,  acts  for  tariffs 
designed  to  hamper  trade  and  acts  for  raising  public  revenue  in  general. 

Let  our  comrades  in  Liberty,  Egois?n,  and  The  Herald  of  Anarchy  rise 
to  more  vital  matters  when  they  touch  upon  the  economics  of  coercion. 
The  evils  of  coinage  are  greatly  overstated,  and  to  them  are  attributed 
effects  with  which  they  have  no  connection.  J.  Greevz  Fisher. 

78  Harrogate  Road,  Leeds,  England. 

Mr.  Fisher's  article,  printed  above,  is  nothing  but  a  string 
of  assertions,  most  of  which,  as  matters  of  fact,  are  untrue. 
The  chief  of  these  untruths  is  the  statement  that  in  exchang- 
ing gold  we  do  not  consume  it.  What  is  consumption  ?  It  is 
the  act  of  destroying  by  use  or  waste.  One  of  the  uses  of 
:;old — and  under  the  existing  financial  system  its  chief  use — is 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


237 


to  act  as  a  medium  of  exchange,  or  else  as  the  basis  of  such  a 
medium.  In  performing  this  function  it  wears  out ;  in  other 
words,  it  is  consumed.  Being  given  a  monopoly  of  this  use  or 
function,  it  has  an  artificial  value, — a  value  which  it  would 
not  have  if  other  articles,  normally  capable  of  this  function, 
were  not  forbidden  to  compete  with  it.  And  these  articles 
suffer  from  this  restriction  of  competition  in  very  much  the 
same  way  that  a  theatre  forbidden  to  give  Sunday  perform- 
ances suffers  if  its  rival  is  allowed  the  privilege.  Mr.  Fisher 
may  deny  the  analogy  as  stoutly  as  he  chooses  ;  it  is  none  the 
less  established.  This  analogy  established,  Mr.  Fisher's  position 
falls, — falls  as  surely  as  his  other  position  has  fallen  :  the 
position  that  government  cannot  affect  values,  which  he  at 
first  laid  down  with  as  much  contemptuous  assurance  as  if  no 
one  could  deny  it  without  thereby  proving  himself  a  born  fool. 
So  there  is  no  need  to  refute  the  rest  of  the  assertions.  I  will 
simply  enter  a  specific  denial  of  some  of  them.  It  is  untrue 
that  gold  is  not  withdrawn  from  the  market  to  raise  its  price. 
It  is  untrue  that  the  gold  mines  are  kept  open  principally  to 
supply  the  arts.  It  is  untrue  that,  if  gold  were  twice  as  dear 
or  twice  as  cheap,  bankers  would  not  lose  or  gain  ;  the  chief 
business  of  the  banker  is  not  to  buy  and  sell  gold,  but  to  lend 
it.  And  I  believe  it  to  be  untrue — though  here  I  do  not 
speak  of  what  I  positively  know — that  English  law  permits 
the  establishment  of  such  banks  as  Proudhon,  Greene,  and 
Spooner  proposed.  Mr.  Fisher  certainly  should  know  more 
about  this  than  I,  but  I  doubt  his  statement,  first,  because 
I  have  found  him  in  error  so  often  ;  second,  because  nine  out 
of  ten  Massachusetts  lawyers  will  tell  you  with  supreme  con- 
fidence that  there  is  no  law  in  Massachusetts  prohibiting  the 
use  of  notes  and  checks  as  currency  (yet  there  is  one  of  "many 
years'  standing,  framed  in  plain  terms,  and  often  have  I 
astonished  lawyers  of  learning  and  ability  by  showing  it  to 
them)  ;  and,  third,  because  I  am  sure  that,  if  such  banks  were 
legal  in  England,  they  would  have  been  started  long  ago. 


THE  EQUALIZATION  OF  WAGE  AND  PRODUCT. 

[Liberty,  August  22,  1891.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

One  does  not  lay  oneself  open  to  a  charge  of  disloyalty  to  the  principles 
of  liberty  by  guarding  against  extravagant  hopes.  It  seems  necessary  to 
keep  this  in  mind  before  saying  a  word  against  any  anticipations  formed 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


by  ardent  and  able  advocates  of  liberty  like  yourself.  It  is  a  hyperbole 
(possibly  open  to  misconstruction)  to  imply  that  some  advocates  of  liberty 
regard  it  as  a  panacea  for  every  ill.  It  therefore  is  a  great  advantage 
when  its  expected  benefits  are  clearly  defined  as  in  your  issue  of  thenth. 
You  believe  that  under  liberty  the  laborer's  wages  will  buy  back  his  prod- 
uct. This  is  fortunately  a  definite  issue.  It  implies  that  if  there  be  a 
naked  producer  or  a  commodity  the  complete  production  of  which,  in- 
cluding all  the  outlay  needful  for  its  delivery  to  the  consumer  at  the  very 
moment  when  he  needs  to  consume  it,  occupies  time  and  demands  the 
empolyment  of  wealth  in  material,  sustenance  of  producer,  and  tools,  of 
none  of  which  this  producer  is  possessed,  this  pauper  producer  shall  retain 
the  full  value  of  his  product  notwithstanding  his  partial  dependence  upon 
some  one  who  provides  the  necessaries  for  his  production  in  anticipation 
of  his  fruition.  Is  not  this  a  fair  and  correct  interpretation  of  your  phrase  ? 
and  supposing  it  to  be  so,  does  it  not  show  that  you  expect  too  much?(i) 

The  facilitation  of  credit  and  the  so-called  circulation  of  debts  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  currency,  together  with  all  schemes  for  mutual  banking  or 
schemes  for  the  more  rapid  development  of  commerce,  imply  that  valu- 
ables shall  be  temporarily  placed  at  the  disposal  of  others  than  their  own- 
ers who  meanwhile  sustain  a  privation  and  also  take  a  serious  risk,  but 
that  these  owners  shall  obtain  no  recompense  beyond  the  bare  return  of 
their  valuables  unimpaired.  (2)  If  a  complex  and  therefore  intricate 
scheme  or  calculation  results  in  producing  something  out  of  nothing  it 
opens  a  suspicion  that  there  is  some  concealed  flaw  in  the  train  of  thought. 
Credit  without  remuneration,  debt  without  cost,  unlimited  or  very  plen- 
tiful money  without  depreciation,  are  the  desired  and  hoped  results  of  the 
new  schemes.  It  is  most  important  to  distinguish  between  demanding 
liberty  to  try  these  schemes,  and  pledging  liberty  to  their  success.  Un- 
fortunately it  does  not  appear  to  be  sufficient  to  call  attention  to  this  dis- 
tinction. Ardent  friends  will  often  unite  the  cause  of  the  fad  with  that  of 
the  principle  unless  the  fad  itself  be  destroyed.  There  are  faddists  who 
avoid  this  pitfall.  (3)  Thus  there  are  some  who  advocate  a  reform  of 
spelling,  but  as  advocates  of  freedom  decline  to  make  even  that  hoped 
success  of  reformed  spelling,  or  its  hoped  rapid  progress  under  a  free  sys- 
tem of  education,  a  plea  or  prop  for  arguments  to  emancipate  teaching 
from  government  restriction,  or  for  enforced  alienation  of  citizens'  prop- 
erty for  its  support.  Teaching  ought  to  be  free  not  because  it  is  argued 
that  spelling  would  be  reformed  and  the  reform  would  be  good,  but  simply 
that  the  reform  may  get  a  chance  and  if  good  may  succeed.  So  govern- 
ment restriction  on  banking  and  credit  ought  not  to  be  repealed  because 
Westrup's  or  Greene's  finance  would  prevail  and  bless  the  people,  but  so 
that  this  and  any  other  device  may  be  tested  and  if  good  succeed.  (4) 

As  against  the  scheme  itself  the  contention  is  that  wealth  originates 
solely  in  production,  and  that  with  plentiful  production  the  wealth  of  the 
poor  will  increase  even  though  the  wealth  of  some  rich  people  is  vastly, 
and,  as  it  is  thought,  inordinately  increased.  But  this  banking  scheme 
does  not  add  to  production.  (5)  It  is  but  a  scheme  for  destroying  one 
source  of  income  of  the  rich  or  appropriating  it  to  the  poorer  producer. 
Without  any  attempt  at  deduction  experience  dictates  the  induction  that 
the  chances  are  in  favor  of  the  man  with  a  special  faculty  for  successful 
financial  operations  rather  than  of  students  of  principles.  The  man  who 
can  actually  value  a  horse,  a  house,  a  crop  of  wheat,  is  more  useful  in  pur- 
suing his  function  as  a  speculator  than  a  student  who  can  ably  analyze 
the  components  of  value  by  prolonged  and  tardy  research.  The  trader 
helps  society  most  and  at  greater  risk,  so  those  of  them  who  succeed  have 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


239 


the  greater  gain,  and  it  is  probably  cheaper  to  society  to  pay  this  figure 
for  the  organization  of  commerce  than  dabble  in  amateurish  schemes. 
The  experience  of  co-operation — both  its  successes  and  its  failures  seem 
to  point  in  this  direction  in  this  country.  (6) 

Government  interference  in  finance  has  broken  down  whenever  it  has 
done  serious  violence  to  sound  economical  principles.  At  present  it  does 
not  do  so.  It  needlessly  coins  some  metal.  This  is  in  England  unac- 
companied with  the  gross  error  of  buying  and  hoarding  increasing  quan- 
tities of  a  metal  whose  production  has  been  greatly  cheapened  of  late. 
Apart  from  the  silver  folly  of  your  government  the  residual  evils  of  gov- 
ernment coinage  are  infinitesimal,  and  they  are  not  commercial.  They 
are  confined  to  the  loss  arising  from  carrying  on  a  productive  or  distribu- 
tive process  by  government  under  monopoly  rather  than  by  free  indi- 
viduals in  combination  or  separately  under  the  economic  control  of  com- 
petition. Here  they  end.  It  is  pure  fancy  unsupported  as  yet  by  evi- 
dence or  true  analogy  that  they  interfere  with  the  movements  of  the 
metal,  or  materially  coerce  the  markets  into  using  an  inferior  commodity 
as  its  most  reliable  and  most  fluent  investment.  (7)  There  is  not  the 
slightest  use  for  the  purposes  of  this  argument  in  comparing  a  law  en- 
forcing the  use  of  golden  drinking-vessels  with  any  laws  connected  with 
the  use  of  gold  as  currency.  A  true  analogy  would  be  found  in  studying 
the  effect  of  monetizing  iron  by  law.  Such  a  law  would  not  demonetize 
gold  unless  it  were  much  more  tyrannical  in  its  mode  of  prescribing  iron 
as  a  legal  tender  than  our  present  law  is  in  prescribing  gold.  (8)  All  gov- 
ernment income,  borrowings,  taxes,  postage,  school  pence,  court  fees, 
all  government  outlay  in  wages,  war  material,  grants  to  localities,  pay- 
*  ment  of  interest  upon  debt  and  all  accounts,  court  verdicts,  official  valu- 
ations, bankrupt  statements,  and  so  on,  would  be  in  terms  of  iron.  But 
I  should  be  free  to  promise  future  delivery,  or  acceptance  of  gold,  or  to 
sell  my  services  or  my  products  for  gold  as  I  now  am  to  promise  to  give 
or  take  iron  at  an  agreed  time  and  place  or  to  hire  myself  for  iron  or  for 
board  and  lodging  or  any  other  mode  of  recompense  I  can  get  any  one 
to  agree  upon.  (9)  Now  it  is  quite  likely  the  first  effect  of  this  would  be 
to  raise  the  price  of  iron  and  thereby  lower  the  value  of  gold  in  compari- 
son with  iron,  coal,  and  other  economic  components  of  the  value  of  iron. 
It  is  also  quite  likely  it  would  stimulate  the  production  of  iron.  But  both 
of  these  effects  would  combine  to  maintain  a  larger  stock  of  iron  hanging 
as  a  buffer  between  producer  and  consumer.  This  would  steady  value, 
but  it  would  also  in  time  counteract  the  first  temporary  effects  of  the  sup- 
posed monetization  of  iron,  and  neither  price  nor  production  would  con- 
tinue to  be  excessive — with  the  sole  exception  of  the  small  increase  of 
consumption  from  wear  and  tear  of  coins.  It  would  not  in  all  probability 
displace  gold  as  the  money  in  the  market,  because  government,  instead 
of  doing  as  it  now  does,  registering,  and  taking  praise  for  the  best  mone- 
tary substance,  would  attempt  to  monetize  an  ill-adapted  commodity,  a 
task  beyond  its  strength,  and  would  sustain  defeat  as  it  has  often  done 
when  debasement  or  other  anti-economic  schemes  were  undertaken. 

If  as  you  assert  the  main  utility  of  gold  consists  in  the  fact  that  it  is 
used  for  currency,  then  your  general  position  is  impregnable.  But  that 
this  is  not  sound  is  somewhat  implied  by  Greene,  who  recognizes  gold 
and  silver  as  merchandise.  "Specie  is  merchandise  having  its  value  de- 
termined, as  such,  by  supply  and  demand."  The  words  "  as  such  "  may 
simply  imply  "  therefore  "  or  may  imply  an  idea  on  Greene's  part  that 
the  value  of  specie  as  money  was  otherwise  determined.  But  what  evi- 
dence have  we  that  the  very  frequent  resale  of  gold — called  its  monetary 


240 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


circulation— is  effectual  in  altering  its  price  (wear  and  tear  excepted)  ? 
Every  time  gold  is  bought  in  or  gathered  in  taxes  the  tendency  is  to  put 
up  the  price,  and  every  time  it  is  thrown  into  market  or  spent  by  govern- 
ment in  outlay  it  tends  to  lower  its  value.  These  operations  do  not  con- 
stitute a  monopoly.  Any  one  can  buy  and  any  one  can  sell  gold  coin. 
There  is  no  monopoly  in  the  matter.  The  monetary  privilege  is  not  a 
monopoly,  and  it  grows  in  the  open  market,  not  in  the  fancied  forcing- 
house  of  government.  Greene  alleges  (in  small  caps)  that  mutual  money 
would  neither  raise  nor  lower  the  price  of  specie.  You  hold  that  it 
would  be  tangibly  reduced  by  mutual  banking.  Which  is  correct  ?  (10) 
Comparing  the  reduction  in  value  you  anticipate  with  one  which  might 
arise  in  the  price  of  whiskey  if  there  were  unrestricted  competition'in  the 
sale  of  it,  you  overlook  the  fact  that  there  is  unrestricted  competition  in 
the  sale  of  gold  bullion  and  specie.  Moreover,  though  we  cannot  tell  by 
what  amount  the  price  of  whiskey  would  be  reduced  by  unrestricted  com- 
petition, we  can  tell  of  what  the  fall  would  consist.  It  would  be  limited 
to  such  relinquishment  of  profit  as  would  be  forced  upon  the  dealers  by 
competition.  If  consumption  increased,  it  might  raise  the  price  by  its 
effect  upon  marginal  or  residual  production  yielding  a  diminished  return, 
or  it  might  be  lowered  by  cheapening  production  by  remunerating  eco- 
nomic employment  of  capital.  This  is  a  false  and  inapplicable  analogy. 
It  is  no  more  correct  to  say  that  gold  is  in  the  process  of  being  consumed 
when  it  is  in  use  as  currency  than  to  say  that  the  inevitable  waste  or  de- 
terioration of  commodities  on  the  road  from  producer  to  consumer  is 
economically  an  act  of  consumption,  (n)  Production  is  not  complete 
until  the  commodity  reaches  the  hands  of  a  person  who  applies  it  to  the 
direct  gratification  of  some  personal  craving.  The  waste  of  gold  in  the 
function  of  currency  is  part  of  the  cost  which  the  consumer  has  to  repay 
when  that  coin  has  been  converted  into  a  consumable  product  which  he 
purchases.  The  only  exception  is  that  this  cost  may  fall  upon  some  other 
product  when  the  less  waste  of  gold  is  voluntarily  substituted  for  the 
waste  of  any  other  commodity  if  one  seeks  to  transport  to  a  distant  mar- 
ket mere  value  irrespective  of  its  embodiment.  It  is  as  if  one  tempora- 
rily needed  a  certain  weight  to  steady  a  machine,  but  was  indifferent  as 
to  whether  it  was  embodied  in  stone,  iron,  or  gold,  all  of  which  he  hap- 
pens to  have  in  stock,  but  which  he  can  subsequently  consume  or  sell 
unimpaired,  and  whose  employment  for  this  purpose  only  infinitesimally 
deteriorates  the  ponderable  and  does  not  impoverish  his  trade  stock  be- 
cause it  does  not  withdraw  the  ponderous  article  from  inspection  or  sale. 

It  is  not  correct  to  reply  to  a  monetary  question  by  pointing  out  that 
government  might  keep  gold  as  dear  as  it  now  is  even  if  it  were  as  cheaply 
produced  as  copper,  by  decreeing  that  we  should  drink  only  from  gold 
goblets.  If  this  could  have  such  effect  it  would  be  inapplicable  to  this 
discussion,  because  it  would  be  decreeing  consumption  while  currency  is 
not  consumption,  but  only  marketing.  But  it  would  fail,  because  of  the 
durability  of  substance.  Only  by  buying  up  the  metal  at  the  desired  value 
could  the  value  be  maintained.  No  purchases  of  gold  with  gold  would 
alter  its  value.  Silver,  copper,  wheat  would  have  to  *be  used  to  buy  up 
gold  at  the  value  it  was  desired  to  maintain,  and  of  course  no  govern- 
ment would  have  the  strength  for  this.  (12)  It  must  be  remembered  that 
miners  would  be  sellers  at  cost.  The  United  States  government  raises 
the  price  of  silver  now  while  it  is  a  buyer.  If  it  tipped  it  in  mid-ocean 
it  would  then  consume  it  in  an  economic  sense.  When  it  becomes  a 
seller  the  price  must  fall.  The  fact  that  there  is  a  possibility  the  law 
may  change  at  any  moment  even  now  keeps  the  price  from  rising  as  it 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


would  if  the  silver  were  immediately  consumed  or  destroyed  instead  of 
being  hoarded.  Surely  it  is  a  very  palpable  error  to  say  that  when  gov- 
ernment sells  or  spends  gold  it  consumes  it  in  an  economic  sense.  If  I 
swap  a  horse  for  a  cow  and  kill  and  eat  the  cow,  do  I  consume  the  horse? 
(13)  I  took  the  horse  from  the  market  when  I  bought  it,  and  I  return  it  to 
the  market  when  I  offer  to  sell  it.  The  question  of  the  metal  has  de- 
manded so  much  elucidation  that  debts  as  commodities  and  as  currency 
must  wait  a  future  communication.  J.  Greevz  Fisher. 

78  Harrogate  Road,  Leeds,  England. 

(1)  No,  this  is  not  a  correct  interpretation  of  my  phrase, 
because  it  is  based  upon  a  conception  of  the  term  product 
seriously  differing  from  my  own.  If  a  laborer's  product  is 
looked  upon  as  the  entirety  of  that  which  he  delivers  to  the 
consumer,  then  indeed  Mr.  Fisher's  point  is  well  taken,  and 
to  expect  the  laborer's  wages  to  buy  back  his  product  is  to 
expect  too  much.  But  that  is  not  what  is  ordinarily  meant  by 
a  laborer's  product.  A  laborer's  product  is  such  portion  of 
the  value  of  that  which  he  delivers  to  the  consumer  as  his 
own  labor  has  contributed.  To  expect  the  laborer's  wages  to 
buy  this  value  back  is  to  expect  no  more  than  simple  equity. 
If  some  other  laborer  has  contributed  to  the  total  value  of  the 
delivered  article  by  making  a  tool  which  has  been  used  in  its 
manufacture  by  the  laborer  who  delivers  it,  then  the  wages 
of  the  laborer  who  makes  the  tool  should  also  buy  back  his 
product  or  due  proportion  of  value,  and  would  do  so  under 
liberty.  But  his  portion  of  the  value  and  therefore  his  wage 
would  be  measured  by  the  wear  and  tear  which  the  tool  had 
suffered  in  this  single  act  of  manufacture,  and  not  by  any  sup- 
posed benefit  conferred  by  the  use  of  the  tool  over  and  above 
its  wear  and  tear.  In  other  words,  the  tool-maker  would 
simply  sell  that  portion  of  the  tool  destroyed  in  the  act  of  man- 
ufacture instead  of  lending  the  tool  and  receiving  it  again  ac- 
companied by  a  value  which  would  more  than  restore  it  to  its 
original  condition.  Mr.  Fisher's  interpretation  rests,  further- 
more, on  a  misconception  of  the  term  wages.  When  a  farmer 
hires  a  day-laborer  for  a  dollar  a  day  and  his  board,  the  board 
is  as  truly  a  part  of  the  wages  as  is  the  dollar  ;  and  when  I  say 
that  the  laborer's  wages  should  buy  back  his  product,  I  mean 
that  the  total  amount  which  he  receives  for  his  labor,  whether 
in  advance  or  subsequently,  and  whether  consumed  before  or 
after  the  performance  of  his  labor,  should  be  equal  in  market 
value  to  his  total  contribution  to  the  product  upon  which  he 
bestows  his  labor.  Is  this  expecting  too  much  ?  If  so,  might 
I  ask  to  whom  the  excess  of  product  over  wage  should  equit- 
ably go? 

(2)  Every  man  who  postpones  consumption  takes  a  risk.  If 


242 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


he  keeps  commodities  which  he  does  not  wish  to  consume, 
they  may  perish  on  his  hands.  If  he  exchanges  them  for 
gold,  the  gold  may  decline  in  value.  If  he  exchanges  them 
for  government  paper  promising  gold  on  demand,  the  paper 
may  decline  in  value.  And  if  he  exchanges  them  for  mutual 
money,  this  transaction,  like  the  others  (though  in  a  smaller 
degree,  we  claim),  has  its  element  of  risk.  But,  as  long  as 
merchants  seem  to  think  that  they  run  less  risk  by  temporarily 
placing  their  valuables  at  the  disposal  of  others  than  by  re- 
taining possession  of  them,  the  advocates  of  mutual  money 
will  no  more  concern  themselves  about  giving  them  recom- 
pense beyond  the  bare  return  of  their  valuables  unimpaired 
than  the  advocates  of  gold  and  government  paper  will  concern 
themselves  to  insure  the  constancy  of  the  one  or  the  solvency 
of  the  other.  As  for  the  "  something  out  of  nothing  "  fallacy, 
that  is  shared  between  God  and  the  Shylocks,  and,  far  from 
being  entertained  by  the  friends  of  free  banking,  is  their 
special  abomination.  "  Credit  without  remuneration  !  "  shrieks 
Mr.  Fisher  in  horror.  But,  if  credit  is  reciprocal,  why  should 
there  be  remuneration  ?  "  Debt  without  cost  !  "  But,  if  debt 
is  reciprocal,  why  should  there  be  cost  ?  "  Unlimited  or  very 
plentiful  money  without  depreciation  !  "  But  if  the  contem- 
plated addition  to  the  volume  of  currency  contemplates  in 
turn  a  broadening  of  the  basis  of  currency,  why  should  there 
be  depreciation  ?  Free  and  mutual  banking  means  simply 
reciprocity  of  credit,  reciprocity  of  debt,  and  an  extension  of 
the  currency  basis.  Mr.  Fisher  has  been  so  inveterate  a 
drinker  of  bad  economic  whiskey  that  he  has  got  the  eco- 
nomic jim-jams  and  sees  snakes  on  every  hand. 

(3)  In  applying  it  to  his  own  views  also,  Mr.  Fisher  takes 
the  sting  out  of  the  word  "fad."  But  it  was  and  is  my  im- 
pression that  he  originally  applied  it  to  the  views  of  the  free 
money  advocates,  not  in  the  playful  spirit  in  which  all  inde- 
pendent men  call  themselves  "cranks,"  but  in  the  contemp- 
tuous spirit  in  which  they  are  given  that  appellation  by  the 
mossbacks.  And  it  was  natural  enough.  In  finance,  Mr. 
Fisher  is  a  mossback.  Contempt  for  contempt, — that's  fair, 
isn't  it  ? 

(4)  It  has  been  repeatedly  stated  in  these  columns  that  we 
ask  nothing  but  liberty.  Given  liberty,  if  we  fail,  we  will  sub- 
side. Nevertheless,  with  Mr.  Fisher's  permission,  we  will 
continue  to  put  in  our  best  licks  for  liberty  in  those  directions 
which  seem  to  us  most  promising  of  good  results.  Mean- 
while we  accord  to  Mr.  Fisher  the  privilege  of  rapping  away 
for  spelling  reform  so  long  as  he  does  it  at  his  own  expense, 


MONEY  AND  INTEREST. 


243 


which  is  not  the  case  at  present.  (My  readers  may  not  see 
the  point,  but  Mr.  Fisher  and  my  printers  will.) 

(5)  This  I  deny.  It  is  the  especial  claim  of  free  banking 
that  it  will  increase  production.  To  make  capital  fluent  is  to 
make  business  active  and  to  keep  labor  steadily  employed  at 
wages  which  will  cause  a  tremendous  effective  demand  for 
goods.  If  free  banking  were  only  a  picayunish  attempt  to 
distribute  more  equitably  the  small  amount  of  wealth  now  pro- 
duced, I  would  not  waste  a  moment's  energy  on  it. 

(6)  Here  we  have  a  very  good  reason  why  I  should  con- 
tinue to  debate  with  Mr.  Fisher  rather  than  form  a  banking 
partnership  with  Mr.  Westrup.  Very  likely  the  banking  firm  of 
Westrup,  Tucker  &  Co.  would  come  speedily  to  grief.  But  I 
am  none  the  less  interested  in  securing  the  greatest  possible 
liberty  for  banking  so  that  I  may  profit  by  the  greater  compe- 
tition that  would  then  be  carried  on  between  those  born  with 
a  genius  for  finance.  But  what  about  Proudhon,  Mr.  Fisher  ? 
He  was  no  amateur.  He  could  value,  not  only  a  horse,  but  a 
railroad,  the  money  kings  utilized  his  business  brains,  his 
Manual  for  a  Bourse  Speculator  served  them  as  a  guide,  and, 
when  he  started  his  Banque  du  Peuple,  it  immediately  assumed 
such  proportions  that  Napoleon  had  to  construct  a  crime  for 
which  to  clap  him  into  jail  in  order  to  save  the  Bank  of 
France  from  this  dangerous  competitor.    Amateur,  indeed  ! 

(7)  On  the  contrary,  there  is  an  abundance  of  evidence. 
The  suppression  of  Proudhon's  bank  was  a  coercion  of  the 
market.  And  in  this  country  attempt  after  attempt  has  been 
made  to  introduce  credit  money  outside  of  government  and 
national  bank  channels,  and  the  promptness  of  the  suppression 
has  always  been  proportional  to  the  success  of  the  attempt. 

(8)  Here  Mr.  Fisher  becomes  heretical.  The  champions  of 
gold  are  proclaiming  with  one  voice  that  the  monetization  of 
silver  will  prove  the  demonetization  of  gold. 

(9)  Just  as  free,  and  no  more  so.  But  this  is  no  freedom  at 
all.  I  tell  Mr.  Fisher  again  that  it  is  a  crime  to  issue  and  cir- 
culate as  currency  a  note  promising  to  deliver  iron  at  a  certain 
time.  I  know  that  it  is  a  crime  in  this  country,  and  I  believe 
that  the  laws  of  England  contain  restrictions  that  accomplish 
virtually  the  same  result. 

(10)  There  is  no  contradiction  between  my  position  and 
Greene's.  Greene  held,  as  I  hold,  that  the  existing  monopoly 
imparts  an  artificial  value  to  gold,  and  that  the  abolition  of 
the  monopoly  would  take  away  this  artificial  value.  But  he 
also  held,  as  I  hold,  that,  after  this  reduction  of  value  had 
been  effected,  the  variations  in  the  volume  of  mutual  money 


244 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


would  be  independent  of  the  price  of  specie.  In  other  words, 
this  reduction  of  the  value  of  gold  from  the  artificial  to  the 
normal  point  will  be  effected  by  the  equal  liberty  given  to 
other  commodities  to  serve  as  a  basis  of  currency;  but,  this 
liberty  having  been  granted  and  having  taken  effect,  the  issue 
of  mutual  money  against  these  commodities,  each  note  being 
based  on  a  specific  portion  of  them,  cannot  affect  the  value  of 
any  of  these  commodities,  of  which  gold  is  one.  It  is  no  an- 
swer to  the  charge  of  monopoly  to  say  that  any  one  can  buy 
and  sell  gold  coin.  No  one  denies  that.  The  monopoly  com- 
plained of  is  this, — that  only  holders  of  gold  (and,  in  this  coun- 
try, of  government  bonds)  can  use  their  property  as  currency 
or  as  a  basis  of  currency.  Such  a  monopoly  has  even  more 
effect  in  enhancing  the  price  of  gold  than  would  a  monopoly 
that  should  allow  only  certain  persons  to  deal  in  gold.  The 
price  of  gold  is  determined  less  by  the  number  of  persons  deal- 
ing in  it  than  by  the  ratio  of  the  total  supply  to  the  total  de- 
mand. The  monopoly  that  the  Anarchists  complain  of  is  the 
monopoly  that  increases  the  demand  for  gold  by  giving  it  the 
currency  function  to  the  exclusion  of  other  commodities.  If 
my  whiskey  illustration  isn't  satisfactory,  I  will  change  it.  If 
whiskey  were  the  only  alcoholic  drink  allowed  to  be  used  as  a 
beverage,  it  would  command  a  higher  price  than  it  commands 
now.  I  should  then  tell  Mr.  Fisher  that  the  value  of  whiskey 
was  artificial  and  that  free  rum  would  reduce  it  to  its  normal 
point.  If  he  should  then  ask  me  what  the  normal  point  was, 
I  should  answer  that  I  had  no  means  of  knowing.  If  he  should 
respond  that  the  fall  in  whiskey  resulting  from  free  rum  "  would 
be  limited  to  such  relinquishment  of  profit  as  would  be  forced 
upon  the  dealers  by  competition,"  I  should  acquiesce  with  the 
remark  that  the  distance  from  London  to  Liverpool  is  equal 
to  the  distance  from  Liverpool  to  Londoa 

(n)  It  is  Mr.  Fisher's  analogy,  not  mine,  that  is  false  and 
inapplicable.  The  proper  analogy  is  not  between  gold  and 
the  commodities  carried,  but  between  gold  and  the  vehicle  in 
which  they  are  carried.  The  cargo  of  peaches  that  rots  on  its 
way  from  California  to  New  England  may  not  be  economically 
consumed  (though  for  my  life  I  can't  see  why  such  consump- 
tion isn't  as  economic  as  the  tipping  of  silver  into  the  Atlantic 
by  the  United  States  government,  which  Mr.  Fisher  considers 
purely  economic),  but  at  any  rate  the  wear  of  the  car  that 
carries  the  cargo  is  an  instance  of  economic  consumption. 
Now  the  gold  that  goes  to  California  to  pay  for  those  peaches 
and  comes  back  to  New  England  to  pay  for  cotton  cloth,  and 
thus  goes  back  and  forth  as  constantly  as  the  railway  car  and 


MONEY  AND  INTEREST. 


245 


facilitates  exchange  equally  with  the  railway  car  and  wears 
out  in  the  process  just  as  the  railway  car  wears  out,  is  in  my 
judgment  consumed  precisely  as  the  railway  car  is  consumed. 
That  only  is  a  complete  product,  Mr.  Fisher  tells  us,  which  is 
in  the  hands  of  a  person  who  applies  it  to  the  direct  gratifica- 
tion of  some  personal  craving.  I  suppose  Mr.  Fisher  will  not 
deny  that  a  railway  car  is  a  complete  product.  But  if  it  can 
be  said  to  be  in  the  hands  of  a  person  who  applies  it  to  the 
direct  gratification  of  some  personal  craving,  then  the  same 
can  be  said  of  gold. 

(12)  I  did  not  mean  to  say  for  a  moment  that  a  government 
could  carry  out  such  an  arbitrary  policy  of  fixing  values  to  an 
unlimited  extent  without  a  revolution,  but  only  that  as  far  as 
the  attempt  should  be  made,  the  economic  result,  pending  the 
revolution,  would  be  as  stated. 

(13)  Yes,  to  a  trifling  extent.  And  if  the  horse  were  then 
to  be  used  to  buy  a  sheep,  and  then  to  buy  a  dog,  and  then  to 
buy  a  cat,  and  then  to  buy  a  cigar,  until  finally  he  could  not 
be  sold  for  enough  oats  to  keep  him  from  falling  in  his  tracks, 
it  is  my  firm  conviction  that  the  horse  in  that  case  would  be 
economically  consumed  in  fulfilling  the  function  of  currency. 


A  FALSE  IDEA  OF  FREEDOM. 

[Liberty,  February  26, 1887.] 

I  must  refer  once  more  to  the  Winsted  Press  and  its 
editor.  It  is  lamentable  to  see  so  bright  a  man  as  Mr.  Pinney 
wasting  his  nervous  force  in  assaults  on  windmills.  But  it  is 
his  habit,  whenever  he  finds  it  necessary  or  thinks  it  timely  to 
say  something  in  answer  to  free-money  advocates,  to  set  up  a 
windmill,  label  it  free  money,  and  attack  that.  An  instance 
of  this  occurs  in  a  scolding  article  on  the  subject  in  his  issue 
of  February  17,  as  the  following  sentence  shows  :  "We  had  a 
little  taste  of  this  free  currency  in  the  days  of  State  wildcat 
banking,  when  every  little  community  had  its  State  bank 
issues."  The  italics  are  mine, — used  to  emphasize  the  substi- 
tution of  the  windmill  State  for  the  giant  Freedom.  How 
could  State  bank  issues  be  free  money  ?  Monopoly  is  monop- 
oly, whether  granted  by  the  United  States  or  by  a  single 
State,  and  the  old  State  banking  system  was  a  thoroughly 
monopolistic  system.  The  unfairness  and  absurdity  of  Mr. 
Pinney's  remark  become  apparent  with  the  reflection  that  the 


246 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


principal  English  work  relied  upon  by  the  friends  of  free 
money,  Colonel  Greene's  "  Mutual  Banking,"  was  written  ex- 
pressly in  opposition  to  the  then  existing  State  banking  sys- 
tem, years  before  the  adoption  of  the  national  banking  system. 
Mr.  Pinney  would  not  fall  back  upon  this  idiotic  argument  if 
he  had  a  better  one.  That  he  has  none  is  indicated  by  his 
saying  of  free  money,  as  he  says  of  free  trade  :  "  In  theory  the 
scheme  is  plausible.  In  practice  it  would  probably  be  an  abom- 
ination." Mr.  Pinney 's  old  conservative,  cowardly,  Calvin- 
istic  refuge  !  When  driven  into  a  corner  on  a  question  which 
turns  on  the  principle  of  Liberty,  he  has  but  one  resort,  which 
amounts  practically  to  this  :  "  Liberty  is  right  in  theory  every- 
where and  always,  but  in  certain  cases  it  is  not  practical.  In 
all  cases  where  I  want  men  to  have  it,  it  is  practical ;  but  in 
those  cases  where  I  do  not  want  men  to  have  it,  it  is  not  prac- 
tical." What  Mr.  Pinney  wants  and  does  not  want  depends 
upon  mental  habits  and  opinions  acquired  prior  to  that  theo- 
retical assent  to  the  principle  of  liberty  which  the  arguments 
of  the  Anarchists  have  wrung  from  him. 


MONOPOLY,  COMMUNISM,  AND  LIBERTY. 

[Liberty,  March  26,  1887.] 

Pinney  of  the  Winsted  Press  grows  worse  and  worse.  It 
will  be  remembered  that,  in  attacking  the  free-money  theory, 
he  said  we  had  a  taste  of  it  in  the  day  of  State  wildcat  bank- 
ing, when  every  little  community  had  its  State  bank  issues  ;  to 
which  I  made  this  answer  :  "  How  could  State  bank  issues 
be  free  money  ?  Monopoly  is  monopoly,  whether  granted  by 
the  United  States  or  by  a  single  State,  and  the  old  State  bank- 
ing system  was  a  thoroughly  monopolistic  system."  This  lan- 
guage clearly  showed  that  the  free-money  objection  to  the  old 
State  banks  as  well  as  to  the  present  national  banks  is  not 
founded  on  any  mistaken  idea  that  in  either  case  the  govern- 
ment actually  issues  the  money,  but  that  in  both  cases  alike 
the  money  is  issued  by  a  monopoly  granted  by  the  government. 
But  Pinney,  not  daring  to  meet  this,  affects  to  ignore  the  real 
meaning  of  my  words  by  assuming  to  interpret  them  as  follows 
(thus  giving  new  proof  of  my  assertion  that  he  wastes  his 
strength  in  attacking  windmills): 

It  is  apparently  Mr.  Tucker's  notion  that  State  banks  were  an  institu- 
tion of  the  State.    They  were  no  more  a  government  institution  than 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


247 


is  a  railroad  company  that  receives  its  charters  from  the  State  and  con- 
ducts its  business  as  a  private  corporation  under  State  laws.  .  .  .  For 
purposes  of  illustration,  they  answer  well,  and  Mr.Tucker's  effort  to 
lessen  the  force  of  the  illustration  by  answering  that  they  were  institu- 
tions of  the  State,  because  they  are  called  for  convenience  State  banks,  is 
very  near  a  resort  to  wilful  falsehood. 

What  refreshing  audacity!  Pinney  knows  perfectly  well 
that  the  advocates  of  free  money  are  opposed  to  the  national 
banks  as  a  monopoly  enjoying  a  privilege  granted  by  the  gov- 
ernment ;  yet  these,  like  the  old  State  banks,  are  no  more  a 
government  institution  than  such  a  railroad  company  as  he 
describes.  Both  national  and  State  banks  are  law-created 
and  law-protected  monopolies,  and  therefore  not  free.  Any- 
body, it  is  true,  could  establish  a  State  bank,  and  can  estab- 
lish a  national  bank,  who  can  observe  the  prescribed  condi- 
tions. But  the  monopoly  'inheres  in  these  compulsory  conditions. 
The  fact  that  national  bank-notes  can  be  issued  only  by  those 
who  have  government  bonds  and  that  State  bank-notes  could 
be  issued  only  by  those  who  had  specie  makes  both  vitally  and 
equally  objectionable  from  the  standpoint  of  free  and  mutual 
banking,  the  chief  aim  of  which  is  to  secure  the  right  of  all 
wealth  "to  monetization  with  prior  conversion  into  some  par- 
ticular form  of  wealth  limited  in  amount  and  without  being 
subjected  to  ruinous  discounts.  If  Mr.  Pinney  does  not  know 
this,  he  is  not  competent  to  discuss  finance  ;  if  he  does  know 
it,  it  was  a  quibble  and  "  very  near  a  resort  to  wilful  false- 
hood "  for  him  to  identify  the  old  State  banking  system  with 
free  banking. 

But  he  has  another  objection  to  free  money, — that  it  would 
enable  the  man  who  has  capital  to  monetize  it,  and  so  double 
his  advantages  over  the  laborer  who  has  none.  Therefore  he 
would  have  the  general  government,  which  he  calls  the  whole 
people,  "  monetize  their  combined  wealth  and  use  it  in  the 
form  of  currency,  while  at  the  same  time  the  wealth  remains 
in  its  owner's  hands  for  business  purposes."  This  is  Mr. 
Pinney's  polite  and  covert  way  of  saying  that  he  would  have 
those  without  property  confiscate  the  goods  of  those  who 
have  property.  For  no  governmental  mask,  no  fiction  of  the 
"  whole  people,"  can  disguise  the  plain  fact  that  to  compel 
one  man  to  put  his  property  under  pawn  to  secure  money  issued 
by  or  to  another  man  who  has  no  property  is  robbery  and 
nothing  else.  Though  you  leave  the  property  in  the  owner's 
hands,  there  is  a  "  grab  "  mortgage  upon  it  in  the  hands  of  the 
government,  which  can  foreclose  when  it  sees  fit.  Mr.  Pinney 
is  on  the  rankest  Communistic  ground,  and  ought  to  declare 
himself  a  State  Socialist  at  once.  -    -  . 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


Certainly  no  one  wishes  more  heartily  than  I  that  every  in- 
dustrious man  was  the  owner  of  capital,  and  it  is  precisely  to 
secure  this  result  that  I  desire  free  money.  I  thought  Mr. 
Pinney  was  a  good  enough  Greenbacker  to  know  (for  the 
Greenbackers  know  some  valuable  truths,  despite  their  fiat- 
money  delusion)  that  the  economic  benefits  of  an  abundance 
of  good  money  in  circulation  are  shared  by  all,  and  not  reaped 
exclusively  by  the  issuers.  He  has  often  clearly  shown  that 
the  effect  of  such  abundance  is  to  raise  the  laborer's  wages  to 
an  equivalence  to  his  product,  after  which  every  laborer  who 
wishes  to  possess  capital  will  be  able  to  accumulate  it  by  his 
work.  All  that  is  wanted  is  a  means  of  issuing  such  an  abun- 
dance of  money  free  of  usury.  Now,  if  they  only  had  the 
liberty  to  do  so,  there  are  already  enough  large  and  small 
property-holders  willing  and  anxious  to  issue  money,  to  pro- 
vide a  far  greater  amount  than  is  needed,  and  there  would  be 
sufficient  competition  among  them  to  bring  the  price  of  issue 
down  to  cost, — that  is,  to  abolish  interest.  Liberty  avoids 
both  forms  of  robbery, — monopoly  on  the  one  side  and  Com- 
munism on  the  other, — and  secures  all  the  beneficent  results 
that  are  (falsely)  claimed  for  either. 


PINNEY  HIS  OWN  PROCRUSTES. 

[Liberty,  April  23,  1887.] 

Having  exhausted  the  resources  of  sophistry,  and  unable 
longer  to  dodge  the  inexorable  and  Procrustean  logic  of 
Pinney  the  anti-Prohibitionist,  Pinney  the  Protectionist  has 
subsided,  and  is  now  playing  possum  in  the  Procrustean  bed 
in  which  Pinney  the  anti-Prohibitionist  has  laid  him.  But 
Pinney  the  Greenbacker  evidently  hopes  still,  by  some  for- 
tunate twist  or  double,  to  find  an  avenue  of  escape  yet  open, 
and  thus  avoid  the  necessity  of  doing  the  possum  act  twice. 
Accordingly,  in  his  Winsted  Press  of  April  7,  he  makes  sev- 
eral frantic  dashes  into  the  dark,  the  first  of  which  is  as  fol- 
lows : 

Our  first  objection  to  free  money  was  that  the  great  variety  of  issues, 
coupled  with  a  questionable  security,  would  limit  circulation  to  local  cir- 
cuits and  subject  the  bill-holder  to  harassing  uncertainty  as  to  the  value 
of  currency  in  his  possession  and  to  constant  risk  of  loss.  To  illustrate 
this  defect  we  mentioned  the  experience  of  the  people  with  the  old  State 
bank  bills,  which  experience,  disastrous  as  it  was,  did  not  offer  a  fair  par- 
allel, simply  and  solely  because  it  was  not  disastrous  enough,  the  banks  be- 


MONEY  AND  INTEREST. 


249 


ing  limited  and  regulated  in  a  measure  by  State  laws  and  machinery  to 
enforce  contracts.  Our  Boston  Procrustes  thereupon  plunged  straight  into 
trouble  by  denying  the  similitude,  because  forsooth  the  old  banks  were 
incorporated  institutions  not  perfectly  free  to  cheat  their  creditors,  forget- 
ting that,  in  so  far  as  they  differed  from  free  banks,  the  difference  in  point 
of  security,  scope  of  credit,  etc.,  was  in  our  favor. 

That  is  one  way  of  putting  it.  Here  is  another.  Free  money 
advocates  hold  that  security  is  one  (only  one)  essential  of  good 
money,  and  that  competition  is  sure  to  provide  this  essential, 
competition  being  simply  natural  selection  or  the  survival  of 
the  fittest,  and  the  fittest  necessarily  possessing  the  quality  of 
security.  But  they  have  never  held  that  it  was  impossible  for 
monopoly  to  furnish  a  temporaily  secure  money.  It  may  or 
may  not  do  so,  according  to  the  prescribed  conditions  of  its 
existence.  Pending  the  universal  bankruptcy  and  revolution 
to  which  it  inevitably  will  lead  if  allowed  to  live  long  enough, 
the  national  bank  monopoly  furnishes  a  money  tolerably  well 
secured.  But  the  old  State  bank  monopoly  furnished  a 
money  far  inferior  in  point  of  security,  not  because  it  was  a 
freer  system, — for  it  was  not, — not  because  the  conditions  of 
its  existence  were  less  artificially  and  compulsorily  prescribed, 
— for  they  were  not, — but  because  the  conditions  thus  pre- 
scribed were  less  in  accordance  with  wise  business  principles 
and  administration.  The  element  of  competition,  or  natural 
selection,  upon  which  the  free  money  advocates  rely  for  the 
supply  of  a  money  that  combines  security  with  all  other  nec- 
essary qualities,  was  just  as  much  lacking  from  the  old  State 
bank  system  as  it  is  from  the  present  national  bank  system. 
Therefore,  to  say  of  the  State  banks  that,  "  in  so  far  as  they 
differed  from  free  banks,  the  difference  in  point  of  security, 
scope  of  credit,  etc.,  was  in  their  favor  "  is  to  beg  the  question 
entirely  ;  and  accordingly,  when  Mr.  Pinney,  as  sole  proof  of  an 
assertion  that  free  money  would  be  unsafe  money,  offered  the 
insecurity  of  the  old  State  bank  bills,  I  informed  him  that 
there  was  not  the  slightest  pertinence  in  his  illustration, 
whereby  I  plunged,  not  myself,  but  Mr.  Pinney  into  trouble. 

To  get  out  of  it  he  performs  a  double  which  eclipses  all  his 
previous  evolutions.  Finding  that  he  must  deal  in  some  way 
with  my  statement  that  the  monopoly  of  money  inheres  in  the 
compulsory  conditions  of  its  issue,  chief  among  which  are 
the  government  bond  basis  in  the  national  bank  system  and 
the  specie  basis  in  the  old  State  bank  system,  he  asks  : 

How  then  about  your  free  banking?  Are  there  not  any  "compulsory 
conditions?"  Free  bank  notes  can  be  issued  only  by  those  who  have 
government  bonds,  or  specie,  or  property  of  some  sort,  we  suppose,  so 
there  are  your  ''compulsory  conditions,"  enforced  by  the  business  law 


250 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


of  self-preservation  (for  State  law  is  not  to  be  mentioned  in  Anarchist 
ears),  and  "  the  monopoly  inheres  in  these  compulsory  conditions." 
Behold,  then,  the  new  monopoly  of  those  who  have  property  ! 

To  this  absurdity  there  are  two  answers.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  not  true  that  under  a  free  banking  system  "  notes  can  be 
issued  only  by  those  who  have  property  of  some  sort."  They 
can  be  issued  and  offered  in  the  market  by  anybody  who 
desires.  To  be  sure,  none  will  be  taken  except  those  issued 
by  persons  having  either  property  or  credit.  But  there  is  no 
monopoly  of  issue  or  the  right  to  issue,  no  denial  of  liberty. 
If  Mr.  Pinney  should  claim  that  this  answer  amounts  to 
nothing  because  issue  is  valueless  without  circulation,  I  shall 
then  remind  him  of  my  previous  statement  that  the  circulation 
of  an  abundance  of  cheap  and  sound  money  benefits  those 
who  use  it  no  less  than  those  who  issue  it,  and  tends  to  raise 
the  laborer's  wages  to  a  level  with  his  product,— a  point  which 
he  carefully  avoids  in  his  last  article,  because  he  knows  that 
he  cannot  dispute  it,  having  frequently  maintained  the  same 
thing  himself. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  Mr.  Pinney's  argument  that  the 
possession  of  property  is  a  necessary  condition  of  the  issue 
and  circulation  of  money,  and  that  therefore  free  money  is 
as  much  a  compulsory  monopoly  as  that  of  the  government 
which  prescribes  the  possession  of  a  certain  kind  of  property 
as  a  condition  of  even  the  issue  of  money,  is  precisely  on  a 
par  with— in  fact,  is  a  glaring  instance  of— the  reasoning 
resorted  to  by  those  friends  of  despotism  who  deny  political 
and  social  liberty  on  the  ground  of  philosophical  necessity. 
The  moment  any  person,  in  the  name  of  human  freedom, 
claims  the  right  to  do  anything  which  another  person  does 
not  want  him  to  do,  you  will  hear  the  second  person  cry  : 
"  Freedom  !  Impossible  !  There's  no  such  thing.  None  of 
us  are  free.  Are  we  not  all  governed  by  circumstances,  by 
our  surroundings,  by  motives  beyond  our  control  ?  Bow,  then, 
to  the  powers  that  be  !  "  Boiled  down,  the  argument  of  these 
people  and  of  Mr.  Pinney  is  this  :  "  No  one  can  do  as  he 
pleases.  Therefore  you  must  do  as  we  please."  It  needs 
only  to  be  stated  in  this  bald  form  to  be  immediately  rejected. 
Hence  I  shall  attempt  no  further  refutation  of  it.  Mr.  Pinney 
will  please  bear  in  mind  hereafter  that,  when  I  use  the  word 
monopoly,  I  refer  not  to  such  monopolies  as  result  from  nat- 
ural evolution  independent  of  government,  but  to  monopolies 
imposed  by  arbitrary  human  power.  He  knew  it  very  well 
before,  but  he  must  dodge,  and  this  was  the  only  dodge  left. 
Let  the  reader  note  here,  however,  how  his  double  undid 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


him.  He  says  that  under  free  banking  the  condition  of  a 
secure  basis  for  money  would  be  "  enforced  by  the  business 
law  of  self-preservation,"  exactly  the  opposite  of  his  original 
charge  that  free  money  would  be  unsafe. 

But  he  is  not  yet  done  with  this  twaddle  about  "  compulsory 
conditions."    Read  again  : 

Mr.  Tucker  cannot  see  that  there  is  any  difference  in  principle  between 
a  law  which  absolutely  prohibits  the  sale  of  an  article,  and  a  law  which 
taxes  the  seller  of  that  article.  The  tax  is  a  "  compulsory  condition  " 
which  prohibits  till  it  is  complied  with.  The  possession  of  property  is 
another  compulsory  condition  which  prohibits  free  banking  till  it  is  com- 
plied with.  Therefore  there  is  no  difference  between  absolute  prohibition 
of  free  banking  and  the  monopolistic  condition  that  practically  prohibits 
a  man  from  being  a  free  banker  unless  he  can  put  up  the  security. 

Utter  confusion  again  !  Mr.  Pinney  seems  unable  to  dis- 
tinguish between  disabilities  created  by  human  meddlesomeness 
and  those  that  are  not.  The  law  which  prohibits  a  sale  and 
the  law  which  taxes  the  seller  both  belong  to  the  former  class  ; 
the  lack  of  property  belongs  to  the  latter,  or  rather,  it  belongs 
to  the  latter  when  conditions  are  normal.  It  is  true  that  the 
lack  of  property  which  at  present  prevails  arises  in  most  cases 
out  of  this  very  denial  of  free  banking,  but  I  cannot  believe 
that  even  Mr.  Pinney  would  cap  the  climax  of  his  absurdity 
by  assigning  as  a  reason  for  the  further  denial  of  free  banking 
a  condition  of  affairs  which  has  grown  out  of  its  denial  in  the 
past.  The  number  of  people  who  now  own  property,  and  the 
amount  of  property  which  they  own,  are  sufficient  to  insure 
us  an  abundance  of  money  as  soon  as  soon  as  its  issue  shall 
be  allowed,  and  from  the  time  this  issue  begins  the  total 
amount  of  property  and  the  number  of  property-owners  will 
steadily  increase. 

To  my  objection  to  his  government  money  monopoly  that 
it  would  be  Communistic  robbery  to  mortgage  all  the  wealth 
of  the  nation  to  secure  all  the  money  of  the  nation,  Mr.  Pinney 
can  only  make  answer  that  the  possibility  that  the  government 
would  foreclose  the  mortgage — that  is,  increase  taxation — 
would  be  very  remote.  As  if  any  possibility  could  be  con- 
sidered remote  which  is  within  the  power  and  for  the  interest 
of  lawmakers  to  achieve,  and  as  if  it  were  not  the  end  and  aim 
of  government  to  tax  the  people  all  that  it  possibly  can  ! 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


TEN  QUESTIONS  BRIEFLY  ANSWERED. 

[Liberty,  May  16,  1891.] 

Liberty  is  asked  by  the  Mutual  Bank  Propaganda  of  Chicago 
to  answer  the  following  questions,  and  takes  pleasure  in  com- 
plying with  the  request.  • 

"  1.  Does  the  prohibitory  tax  of  ten  per  cent,  imposed  by 
Congress  on  any  issue  of  paper  money  other  than  is  issued 
by  the  U.  S.  Treasury  limit  the  volume  of  money  ?  If  not, 
why  not  ? 

Yes. 

"  2.  Whence  did  the  State  originally  derive  the  *  right '  to 

dictate  what  the  people  should  use  as  money?" 
From  its  power. 

"  3.  If  an  association  or  community  voluntarily  agree  to  use 
a  certain  money  of  their  own  device  to  facilitate  the  exchange 
of  products  and  avoid  high  rates  of  interest,  has  the  State  the 
right  to  prohibit  such  voluntary  association  for  mutual  ad- 
vantage ? " 

Only  the  right  of  might. 

"  4.  Do  not  restrictions  as  to  what  shall  be  used  as  money 
interfere  with  personal  liberty?" 
Yes. 

"  5.  Has  the  question  of  free  trade  in  banking — *>.,  the 
absence  of  all  interference  on  the  part  of  the  State  with 
making  and  supplying  money — ever  been  a  matter  of  public 
discussion  ? " 

Yes. 

"  6.  What  effect  does  the  volume  of  money  have  upon  the 
rate  of  interest  ?" 

I  suppose  the  intention  is  to  ask  what  effect  changes  in  the 
volume  of  money  have  upon  the  rate  of  interest.  Not  neces- 
sarily any  ;  but  any  arbitrary  limitation  of  the  volume  of 
money  that  tends  to  keep  it  below  the  demand  also  tends  to 
raise  the  rate  of  interest. 

"  7.  Can  the  business  of  banking  and  the  supply  of  money 
be  said  to  be  under  the  operation  of  supply  and  demand 
where  the  State  prohibits  or  restricts  its  issue,  or  dictates  what 
shall  be  used  as  money  ?" 

Inasmuch  as  they  often  are  said  to  be  so,  they  evidently 
can  be  said  to  be  so,  but  whoever  says  them  to  be  so  lies. 

"  8.  Is  there  such  a  thing  as  a  measure  or  standard  of  value  ? 
If  so,  how  is  it  constituted,  and  what  is  its  function  V* 


MONEY  AND  INTEREST. 


253 


There  is  such  a  thing  as  a  measure  or  standard  of  value 
whenever  we  use  anything  as  such.  It  is  constituted  such 
either  by  force  or  by  agreement.  Its  function  is  implied  in 
its  name — measure  of  value.  Without  the  selection,  delib- 
erate or  accidental,  conscious  or  unconscious,  of  something 
as  a  standard  of  value,  money  is  not  only  impossible,  but  un- 
thinkable. 

"  9.  What  becomes  of  the  4  standard  '  or  1  measure  '  of  value 
during  suspensions  of  specie  payment  ?  " 

Nothing.  It  remains  what  it  was  before.  Certain  parties 
have  refused  to  pay  their  debts  ;  that's  all. 

"  10.  Are  you  in  favor  of  free  trade  in  banking,  including 
the  issue  of  paper  money  ?    If  not,  why  not  ? " 

Yes. 


A  STANDARD  OF  VALUE  A  NECESSITY. 

[Liberty,  June  13,  1891.] 

Readers  of  Liberty  will  remember  an  article  in  No.  184  on 
"  The  Functions  of  Money,"  reprinted  from  the  Galveston 
News.  In  a  letter  to  the  News  I  commented  upon  this  article 
as  follows: 

I  entirely  sympathize  with  your  disposal  of  the  Evening  Post's  at- 
tempt to  belittle  the  function  of  money  as  a  medium  of  exchange;  but 
do  you  go  far  enough  when  you  content  yourself  with  saying  that  a 
standard  of  value  is  highly  desirable  ?  Is  it  not  absolutely  necessary  ? 
Is  money  posible  without  it?  If  no  standard  is  definitely  adopted,  and 
then  if  paper  money  is  issued,  does  not  the  first  commodity  that  the  first 
note  is  exchanged  for  immediately  become  a  standard  of  value  ?  Is  not 
the  second  holder  of  the  note  governed  in  making  his  next  purchase  by 
what  he  parted  with  in  his  previous  sale?  Of  course  it  is  a  very  poor 
standard  that  is  thus  arrived  at,  and  one  that  must  come  in  conflict  with 
other  standards  adopted  in  the  same  indefinite  way  by  other  exchanges 
occurring  independently  but  almost  simultaneously  with  the  first  one 
above  supposed.  But  so  do  gold  and  silver  come  in  conflict  now. 
Doesn't  it  all  show  that  the  idea  of  a  standard  is  inseparable  from  money  ? 
Moreover,  there  is  no  danger  in  a  standard.  The  whole  trouble  dis- 
appears with  the  abolition  of  the  basis  privilege. 

The  News  printed  my  letter,  and  made  the  following  re- 
joinder: 

It  will  occur  that  in  emphasizing  one  argument  there  is  such  need  of 
passing  others  by  with  seeming  unconcern  that  to  some  minds  other 
truths  seem  slighted, — truths  which  also  need  emphasizing  perhaps  in 
an  equal,  or  it  may  be,  for  useful  practical  reasons,  in  a  superior  degree. 


254 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


The  News  aims  at  illustrating  one  thing  at  a  time,  but  it  is  both  recep- 
tive and  grateful  to  those  correspondents  who  intelligently  extend  its 
work  and  indicate  useful  subjects  for  discussion,  giving  their  best  thought 
thereon.  A  Boston  reader,  speaking  of  the  standard  of  value,  states  an 
undeniable  truth  to  the  effect  that  without  a  thing  or  things  of  value  to 
which  paper  money  can  be  referred  and  which  can  ultimately  be  got  for 
it,  such  money  would  be  untrustworthy  or  worthless.  The  News  in 
a  past  article  was  discussing  primary  commerce  and  the  transition  to 
indirect  exchange.  No  agreed  standard  for  valuation  is  needed  while 
mere  barter  is  the  rule  ;  but  it  is  indispensable  as  soon  as  circulating 
notes  are  issued.  The  vice  of  the  greenback  theory  is  that  the  notes  do 
not  call  for  anything  in  particular,  and  so,  if  their  volume  be  doubled, 
their  purchasing  power  must  apparently  decline  one-half.  A  note  pro- 
perly based  on  gold,  silver,  wheat,  cotton,  or  other  commodity  has  a 
tangible  security  behind  it.  The  one  thing  may  be  better  than  the 
other,  but  the  principle  is  there  in  all.  It  is,  however,  a  notable  truth 
that  the  standard  for  valuation  can  be  nothing  better  than  an  empirical 
one.  Like  mathematical  quantities,  value  has  no  independent  existence, 
but,  unlike  mathematical  quantities,  value  has  not  even  existence  as  a 
quality  of  one  object.  It  cannot  be  compared  to  a  measure  of  length, 
which  posesses  the  quality  of  extension  in  itself.  Gold  is  assumed  to 
vary  little  in  relation  to  other  things,  and  they  to  vary  much  in  relation 
to  gold.  Nobody  can  know  how  much  gold  does  vary  in  the  relation. 
The  notable  steadiness  is  in  the  amount  of  labor  which  will  produce  a 
given  quantity  and  the  length  of  time  which  it  will  last.  The  basis  of  the 
assumed  steadiness  of  gold  is  thus  found.  But  if  the  standard  for  use  in 
making  valuations  be  confessedly  empirical  and  value  an  elusive  quality 
not  of  things  separately,  but  of  things  in  relation,  there  is  a  countervail- 
ing difference  between  a  standard  of  length  and  a  standard  of  value, 
which  results  in  disposing  of  the  objection  that  the  standard  is  empirical. 
Why  would  it  be  a  serious  objection  to  a  yardstick  if  it  were  longer  or 
shorter  from  day  to  day  ?  Because  thus  the  customer  would  get  more  or 
less  cloth  than  was  intended.  But  why  is  that?  Because  the  function 
of  the  yardstick  is  to  measure  for  delivery  as  great  a  length  of  cloth  as 
its  own  length.  But  now  let  us  visit  a  bank  or  insurance  office.  We 
want  a  loan  of  circulating  notes  or  a  policy  of  insurance.  The  property 
offered  as  security  is  valued.  Assume  that  gold  is  taken  as  the  standard, 
and  that  the  loan  or  the  policy  is  for  $600  on  a  valuation  of  $1000.  It 
is  no  matter  in  these  cases  if  the  standard  varies,  provided  it  does  not 
vary  to  exceed  the  margin  between  the  valuation  and  the  obligation.  The 
property  pledged  is  merely  security  for  the  loan,  or,  in  the  case  of  in- 
surance, the  premium  paid  is  a  per  cent,  of  the  amount  insured.  The 
margin  between  the  valuation  and  the  loan  is  established  to  make  the  loan 
abundantly  safe.  The  policy  is  safely  written  through  the  same  expedi- 
ent. The  empirical  standard  of  value  has  a  needful  compensation  about 
it  which  the  yardstick  or  other  measure  neither  has  nor  needs, — viz.,  the 
valuing  goods  does  not  deliver  them.  It  is  provisional.  In  case  of 
default  in  paying  back  the  loan,  the  goods  are  sold  and  the  same  money 
borrowed  is  paid  back,  but  the  residue  goes  to  the  borrower.  It  is  there- 
fore an  efficient  compensation  for  the  lack  of  an  invariable  standard  of 
value  that  the  actual  standard  in  any  case  is  simply  used  as  a  means  of 
estimating  limits  within  which  loans  are  safe.  All  danger  is  avoided  by 
giving  the  borrower  the  familiar  right  in  case  of  foreclosure.  It  is  some- 
times a  fine  thing  to  discover  distinctions,  but  it  is  a  frequently  a  finer 
thing  to  discover  whether  or  not  the  distinctions  affect  the  question. 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


255 


While  not  hesitating  for  a  moment  to  accept  the  News's 
explanation  that,  when  hinting  that  a  standard  of  value  is  not 
indispensable,  it  was  speaking  of  barter  only,  I  may  point  out 
nevertheless  that  there  was  a  slip  of  the  pen,  and  that  the 
words  actually  used  conveyed  the  idea  that  something  more 
than  barter  was  in  view.  Let  me  quote  from  the  original 
article  : 

It  is  manifest  that  a  medium  of  exchange  is  absolutely  necessary  to  all 
trade  beyond  barter.  A  standard  of  value  is  highly  desirable,  but  per- 
haps this  is  as  much  as  can  be  safely  asserted  on  that  question. 

It  seems  to  me  a  fair  interpretation  of  this  language  to  claim 
the  meaning  that  in  trade  beyo?id  barter  it  is  not  sure  that  a 
standard  of  value  is  absolutely  necessary.  And  this  interpre- 
tation receives  additional  justification  when  it  is  remembered 
that  the  words  were  used  in  answer  to  the  Evening  Post's 
contention  that,  in  comparing  the  two  functions  of  money,  its 
office  of  medium  of  exchange  must  be  held  inferior  to  its 
office  of  measuring  values. 

However,  the  News  now  makes  it  sufficiently  clear  that  a 
standard  of  value  is  absolutely  essential  to  money,  thereby 
taking  common  ground  with  me  against  the  position  of 
Comrade  Westrup.  Still  I  cannot  quite  agree  to  all  that  it 
says  in  comment  upon  the  Westrup  view. 

First,  I  question  its  admission  that  a  measure  of  value  dif- 
fers from  a  measure  of  length  in  that  the  former  is  empirical. 
True,  value  is  a  relation  ;  but  then,  what  is  extension  ?  Is  not 
that  a  relation  also, — the  relation  of  an  object  to  space  ?  If  so, 
then  the  yardstick  does  not  possess  the  quality  of  extension  in 
itself,  being  as  dependent  for  it  upon  space  as  gold  is  depen- 
dent for  its  value  upon  other  commodities.  But  this  is  meta- 
physical and  may  lead  us  far  ;  therefore  I  do  not  insist,  and 
pass  on  to  a  more  important  consideration. 

Second,  I  question  whether  the  News's  "  countervailing 
difference  between  a  standard  of  length  and  a  standard  of 
value  "  establishes  all  that  it  claims.  In  the  supposed  case 
of  a  bank  loan  secured  by  mortgage,  the  margin  between  the 
valuation  and  the  obligation  practically  secures  the  note- 
holder against  loss  from  a  decline  in  the  value  of  the  security, 
but  it  does  not  secure  him  against  loss  from  a  decline  in  the 
value  of  the  standard,  or  make  it  impossible  for  him  to  profit 
by  a  rise  in  the  value  of  the  standard.  Suppose  that  a  farmer, 
having  a  farm  worth  $5000  in  gold,  mortgages  it  to  a  bank  as 
security  for  a  loan  of  $2500  in  notes  newly  issued  by  the  bank 
against  this  farm.    With  these  notes  he  purchases  implements 


256 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


from  a  manufacturer.  When  the  mortgage  expires  a  year 
later,  the  borrower  fails  to  to  lift  it.  Meanwhile  gold  has 
declined  in  value.  The  farm  is  sold  under  the  hammer,  and 
brings,  instead  of  $5000  in  gold,  $6000  in  gold.  Of  this  sum 
$2500  is  used  to  meet  the  notes  held  by  the  manufacturer  who 
took  them  a  year  before  in  payment  for  the  implements  sold 
to  the  farmer.  Now,  can  the  manufacturer  buy  back  his 
implements  with  $2500  in  gold  ?  Manifestly  not,  for  by  the 
hypothesis  gold  has  gone  down.  Why,  then,  is  not  this 
manufacturer  a  sufferer  from  the  variation  in  the  standard  of 
value,  precisely  as  the  man  who  buys  cloth  with  a  short  yard- 
stick and  sells  it  with  a  long  one  is  a  sufferer  from  the  varia- 
tion in  the  standard  of  length  ?  The  claim  that  a  standard 
of  value  varies,  and  inflicts  damage  by  its  variations,  is  perfectly 
sound  ;  but  the  same  is  true,  not  only  of  the  standard  of  value, 
but  of  every  valuable  commodity  as  well.  Even  if  there  were 
no  standard  of  value  and  therefore  no  money,  still  nothing 
could  prevent  a  partial  failure  of  the  wheat  crop  from  enhanc- 
ing the  value  of  every  bushel  of  wheat.  Such  evils,  so  far  as 
they  arise  from  natural  causes,  are  in  the  nature  of  inevitable 
disasters  and  must  be  borne.  But  they  are  of  no  force  what- 
ever as  an  argument  against  the  adoption  of  a  standard  of 
value.  If  every  yardstick  in  existence,  instead  of  constantly 
remaining  thirty-six  inches  long,  were  to  vary  from  day  to  day 
within  the  limits  of  thirty-five  and  thirty-seven  inches,  we 
should  still  be  better  off  than  with  no  yardstick  at  all.  But  it 
would  be  no  more  foolish  to  abolish  the  yardstick  because  of 
such  a  defect  than  it  would  be  to  abolish  the  standard  of  value, 
and  therefore  money,  simply  because  no  commodity  can  be 
found  for  a  standard  which  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  supply 
and  demand. 


A  NECESSITY  OR  A  DELUSION,— WHICH  ? 

[Liberty,  June  27,  1891.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

It  is  not  only  a  delusion,  but  a  misuse  of  language,  to  talk  of  a  "stand- 
ard of  value."  Give  us  a  standard  of  pain  or  pleasure,  and  you  may 
convince  us  that  there  can  be  a  "standard  of  value."  I  am  well  aware 
of  the  difficulty  of  discussing  this  question,  even  with  so  precise  an  editor 
as  Mr.  Tucker  ;  but  since  he  has  called  in  question  the  views  presented 
in  my  pamphlet,  I  feel  called  upon  to  lay  before  the  readers  of  Liberty 
some  additional  arguments' to  show  the  correctness  of  what  Mr.  Tucker 
has  honored  me  by  calling  **  the  Westrup  view." 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


257 


Let  us  consider  for  a  moment  the  practical  workings  of  a  Mutual  Bank, 
as  near  as  we  can  foretell  them.  , 

The  incentive  to  organize  a  Mutual  Bank  is  the  opportunity  of  borrow- 
ing money  at  a  very  low  rate  of  interest  and  no  additional  expense.  1  his 
desideratum  is  not  confined  to  a  few  individuals,  but  is  we  1-nigh  uni- 
versal It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  starting  of  a  bank  will  draw  to  it 
a  laree  number  of  people,  embracing  producers  and  dealers  in  almost, 
perhaps  all,  commodities.  One  of  the  conditions  in  obtaining  the  notes 
(paper  money)  of  the  Mutual  Bank  is  that  they  will  be  taken  in  lieu  of 
current  money  without  variation  in  the  price  of  the  commodities  by  those 
who  borrow  them.  .  This  condition  is  just,  and  will  be  readily  acquiesced 
in  without  a  murmur.  At  the  very  outset  of  the  Mutual  Bank,  then,  we 
have  at  least  dealers  in  most  of  the  ordinary  commodities  who  will 
accept  its  money  in  place  of  current  money.  This  certainty  of  its 
redemption  in  commodities  at  their  market-price  in  current  money 
guarantees  its  circulation.  :^«i„ 
Strictlv  speaking,  the  Mutual  Bank  does  not  issue  the  money  ;  it  simply 
furnishes  it  and  is  the  custodian  of  the  collateral  pledged  to  insure  its  re- 
turn    It  is  the  borrowers  who  both  issue  and  redeem. 

The  transaction  between  the  bank  and  the  borrower  is  of  no  interest  to 
the  public  previous  to  the  issue  of  any  of  the  money  by  the  borrower. 
Neither  is  it  concerned  with  the  transaction  between  the  borrower  and  the 
bank  after  the  former  has  redeemed  att  the  money  he  borrowed. 

Discussing  theories  is  far  less  important  than  efforts  to  put  in  practice 
such  momentous  reforms  as  the  application  of  the  mutual  feature  to  the 
supply  of  the  medium  of  exchange.  If  Comrade  Tucker  really  desires  the 
establishment  of  Mutual  Banks,  it  seems  to  me  he  would  naturally  discuss 
the  practicability  of  such  institutions.  Let  him  point  out  wherein  the 
above  forecast  is  unsound.  Let  him  show  the  necessity  for  a  standard 
of  value  "  and  suggest  how  to  introduce  one  ;  perhaps  I  may  become  con- 
verted I  shall  most  surely  acknowledge  my  error  if  I  am  convinced,  but 
I  have  no  time  or  inclination  to  discuss  any  abstract  theory  about  a 
"standard  of  value."  The  one  question  that  seems  to  me  of  importance 
is  the  practicability  of  the  Mutual  Bank.  If  it  is  not  practicable,  why  is  it 
not  so?  If  it  is,  why  waste  time  and  space  in  discussing  whether  the  first 
or  the  second  or  any  other  commodity  exchanged  becomes  the  ..  measure 
or  standard  of  value  " ;  especially  as  "the  whole  trouble  disappears  with 
the  abolition  of  the  basis  privilege." 

Alfred  B.  Westrup. 


Mr.  Westrup's  article  sustains  in  the  clearest  manner  my 
contention  that  money  is  impossible  without  a  standard  of 
value.  Starting  out  to  show  that  such  a  standard  is  a  delu- 
sion, he  does  not  succeed  in  writing  four  sentences  descrip- 
tive of  his  proposed  bank  before  he  adopts  that  "  delusion." 
He  tells  us  that  "  one  of  the  conditions  in  obtaining  the  notes 
(paper  money)  of  the  Mutual  Bank  is  that  they  will  be  taken 
in  lieu  of  current  money."  What  does  this  mean  ?  Why,  simply 
that  the  patrons  of  the  bank  agree  to  take  its  notes  as  the 
equivalent  of  gold  coin  of  the  same  face  value.  In  other 
words,  they  agree  to  adopt  gold  as  a  standard  of  value.  They 
will  part  with  as  much  property  in  return  for  the  notes  as  they 


258 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


would  part  with  in  return  for  gold.  And  if  there  were  no  such 
standard,  the  notes  would  not  pass  at  all,  because  nobody 
would  have  any  idea  of  the  amount  of  property  that  he  ought 
to  exchange  for  them.  The  naivete  with  which  Mr.  Westrup 
gives  away  his  case  shows  triumphantly  the  puerility  of  his 
raillery  at  the  idea  of  a  standard  of  value. 

Indeed,  Comrade  Westrup,  I  ask  nothing  better  than  to  dis- 
cuss the  practicability  of  mutual  banks.  All  the  work  that  I 
have  been  doing  for  liberty  these  nineteen  ^years  has  been 
directed  steadily  to  the  establishment  of  the  conditions  that 
alone  will  make  them  practicable.  I  have  no  occasion  to  show 
the  necessity  for  a  standard  of  value.  Such  necessity  is  al- 
ready recognized  by  the  people  whom  we  are  trying  to  con- 
vince of  the  truth  of  mutual  banking.  It  is  for  you,  who  deny 
this  necessity,  to  give  your  reasons.  And  in  the  very  moment 
in  which  you  undertake  to  tell  us  why  you  deny  it,  you  admit 
it  without  knowing  it.  It  would  never  have  occurred  to  me  to 
discuss  the  abstract  theory  of  a  standard  of  value.  I  regard 
it  as  too  well  settled.  But  when  you,  one  of  the  most  con- 
spicuous and  faithful  apostles  of  mutual  banking,  begin  to  bring 
the  theory  into  discredit  and  ridicule  by  basing  your  argu- 
ments in  its  favor  on  a  childish  attack  against  one  of  the 
simplest  of  financial  truths,  I  am  as  much  bound  to  repudiate 
your  heresy  as  an  engineer  would  be  to  disavow  the  calcula- 
tions of  a  man  who  should  begin  an  attempt  to  solve  a  difficult 
problem  in  engineering  by  denying  the  multiplication  table. 

I  fully  recognize  Mr.  Westrup's  faithful  work  for  freedom 
in  finance  and  the  ability  with  which  he  often  defends  it.  In 
fact,  it  is  my  appreciation  of  him  that  has  prevented  me  from 
criticising  his  error  earlier.  I  did  not  wish  to  throw  any  ob- 
stacle in  the  path  or  in  any  way  dampen  the  enthusiasm  of 
this  ardent  propagandist.  But  when  I  see  that  admirable 
paper,  Egoism,  of  San  Francisco,  putting  forward  those  writ- 
ings of  Mr.  Westrup  which  contain  the  objectionable  heresy  ;* 
and  when  I  see  that  other  admirable  paper,  The  Herald  oj. 
Anarchy,  of  London,  led  by  his  or  similar  ideas  to  advocate 
the  issue  of  paper  bearing  on  its  face  the  natural  prices  of  all 
commodities  (!);  and  when  I  see  Individualists  holding  Anar- 
chism responsible  for  these  absurdities  and  on  the  strength  of 
them  making  effective  attacks  upon  a  financial  theory  which, 
when  properly  defended,  is  invulnerable, — it  seems  high  time 
to  declare  that  the  free  and  mutual  banking  advocated  by 
Proudhon,  Greene,  and  Spooner  never  contemplated  for  a 

*  Egoism  later  saw  its  error,  and  recognized  the  necessity  of  a  stand- 
ard of  value. 


MONEY  AND  INTEREST. 


259 


moment  the  desirability  or  the  possibility  of  dispensing  with  a 
standard  of  value.  If  others  think  that  a  standard  of  value  is 
a  delusion,  let  them  say  so  by  all  means;  but  let  them  not  say 
so  in  the  name  of  the  financial  theories  and  projects  which  the 
original  advocates  of  mutual  banking  gave  to  the  world. 


ANARCHY'S  NEW  ALLY. 

{Liberty,  June  18,  1892.] 

Natural  science  and  technical  skill,  which  have  revolu- 
tionized so  many  things,  may  yet  revolutionize  political  econ- 
omy, and.  in  a  way  little  dreamed  of.  It  has  long  been  knownt 
that  the  water  of  the  ocean  contains  gold  and  silver.  The 
percentage  of  these  metals,  however,  is  so  very  small  that  at 
first  thought  it  hardly  seems  worth  noticing.  And  as  a  matter 
of  fact  little  notice  has  been  taken  of  it,  but  principally  for 
the  reason  that  the  extraction  of  the  metals  by  any  advan- 
tageous method  has  been  deemed  an  impossibility.  Now 
comes  the  Fairy  Electricity,  whose  wand  has  already  achieved 
so  many  wonders,  and  promises  us  a  new  miracle,  which, 
though  possibly  less  strange  in  itself  than  some  others,  will  be 
more  far-reaching  in  its  results  than  all  the  telegraphs  and 
telephones  and  railways  imaginable.  She  proposes,  by  stretch- 
ing long  series  of  iron  plates  across  channels  and  through 
various  parts  of  the  seas  and  ocean  and  running  an  electric 
current  though  them,  to  precipitate  the  gold  and  silver  from 
the  water  upon  these  plates.  It  is  estimated  that  one-half  of 
one  horse  power  is  all  that  is  needed  for  the  purpose,  and  that 
it  will  consequently  be  possible  to  get  gold  in  this  way  at  a 
cost  equal  to  but  one  per  cent,  of  its  present  value. 

But  where  does  the  revolution  in  political  economy  come 
in  ?  some  one  may  ask.  Does  the  connection  seem  remote  to 
you,  my  thoughtless  friend  ?  Then  think  a  bit  and  listen. 
Every  ton  of  sea-water  contains  half  a  grain  of  gold  and  a 
grain  and  a  half  of  silver.  Has  that  an  insignificant  sound  ? 
If  so,  let  us  appeal  to  mathematics.  We  shall  find  that,  at 
the  rate  of  half  a  grain  of  gold  and  a  grain  and  a  half  of  silver 
to  each  ton  of  sea-water,  the  entire  seas  and  oceans  of  the 
world  (I  take  the  figures  from  a  scientific  journal)  contain 
21,595  billion  tons  of  gold  and  64,785  billion  tons  of  silver.  As 
good  fish  in  the  sea  as  ever  were  caught  ?  I  should  say  so, 
and  much  better  !    Why,  this  means,  to  speak  at  a  venture, 


260 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


that  there  is  several  billion  times  as  much  gold  in  the  water  as 
has  been  extracted  from  the  land  up  to  date.  Now,  if  this 
gold  can  be  taken  from  the  water,  as  is  claimed,  at  the  rate  of 
a  dollar's  worth  for  a  cent,  soon  it  will  be  scarcely  worth  its 
weight  in  good  rag-paper.  The  much  defamed  "  rag  baby  " 
will  be  a  very  aristocratic  personage  beside  it.  In  that  case 
what  will  become  of  "  the  metal  appointed  by  God  in  his  good- 
ness to  serve  as  the  currency  of  the  world  "  ?  Would  it  be 
possible  to  more  thoroughly  revolutionize  political  economy 
than  by  dethroning  gold  ?  And  could  gold  be  more  effectually 
dethroned  than  by  reducing  its  value  to  insignificance  ?  Its 
monetary  privilege  would  disappear  instantly  and  of  necessity, 
and  the  era  of  free  money  would  dawn,  with  all  the  tremen- 
dous blessings,  physical,  mental,  and  moral,  that  must  follow  in 
( its  wake.  As  Proudhon  well  says :  "  The  demonetization  of 
gold,  the  last  idol  of  the  Absolute,  will  be  the  greatest  act  of 
the  revolution  of  the  future." 

All  hail,  then,  Electricity  !  On  with  your  magnificent  work! 
Lend  a  hand,  you  believers  in  dynamite;  we  offer  you  a  better 
saviour  !  This  good  fairy  is  carrying  on  a  "  propaganda  by 
deed  "that  discounts  all  your  Ravachols.  Success  to  her! 
May  she  force  gold,  the  last  bulwark  of  Archism,  to  become, 
through  offering  itself  for  sacrifice  on  {he  altar  of  Liberty,  the 
greatest  of  Anarchists,  the  final  emancipator  of  the  race  ! 

Money,  said  Adam  Smith,  in  one  of  those  flashes  of  his  in- 
tellectual genius  which  have  so  illuminated  man's  economic 
path,  money  is  "  a  wagon-way  through  the  air."  If  Electricity 
shall  make  of  this  wagon-way  a  railway,  it  will  be  the  most 
signal,  the  most  useful  of  her  exploits. 


ECONOMIC  SUPERSTITION. 

[Liberty,  August  13,  1892.] 

Apropos  of  my  editorial  of  a  few  weeks  ago,  forecasting  the 
probable  increase  in  the  supply  of  gold  through  its  extraction 
from  the  ocean  and  the  consequences  thereof,  Comrade  Koop- 
man  writes  me  :  "  If  this  is  so,  every  craft  that  sails  the  ocean 
blue  will  carry  an  electrical  centre-board  to  rake  in  the  gold 
as  it  sails  along.  I  am  afraid,  though,  that  the  governments 
will  betake  themselves  to  platinum  (I  believe  Russia  tried  it 
once)  or  some  other  figment,  and  so  postpone  their  day  of 
reckoning.    But  what  a  shaking-up  a  gold  deluge  will  give 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


26l 


them  if  it  come  !  I  hope  we  may  be  there  to  see."  If  the 
present  adherence  to  gold  were  anything  but  a  religion,  there 
would  be  some  ground  for  Comrade  Koopman's  fears.  But, 
so  far  as  the  people  is  concerned,  it  is  only  a  religion.  To 
uproot  the  idea  that  gold  is  divinely  appointed  to  serve  as  the 
money  of  the  world  is  to  destroy  the  godhead.  In  vain,  after 
that,  will  the  priests  of  plutocracy  propose  a  change  of  deities. 
The  people  will  say  to  them  :  "  If  you  lied  when  you  told  us 
that  gold  was  God,  you  are  lying  now  when  you  place  platinum 
on  the  celestial  throne.  No  more  idolatry  for  us  !  Hence- 
forth all  property  shall  stand  on  an  equality  before  the  Bank. 
In  demonetizing  gold  we  monetize  all  wealth."  The  Anarch- 
ists are  fighting  the  old,  old  battle, — the  battle  of  reason 
against  superstition.  In  the  earlier  phases  of  this  battle, 
science,  after  a  time,  re-enforced  the  philosophers  and  gave  the 
finishing  stroke  in  the  demolition  of  the  theological  god.  Per- 
haps it  is  reserved  for  science  to  similarly  re-enforce  the 
Anarchists  in  their  task  of  smashing  the  last  of  the  idols.  Of 
this,  however,  I  am  not  as  hopeful  as  I  was.  A  fact  has  lately 
come  to  light  that  fills  me  with  misgiving.  No  sooner  is  it 
proposed  to  begin  the  extraction  of  gold  and  silver  from  the 
ocean  by  the  new  and  cheap  method  than  a  man  pops  up  in 
England  to  say  that  he  patented  this  method  a  year  or  two 
ago.  If  his  patent  is  valid  (and  I  see  nothing  to  the  contrary), 
this  man  is  virtual  owner  of  the  entire  21  billion  tons  of  gold 
and  64  billion  tons  of.  silver  which  the  ocean  contains.  All 
the  priests  and  bishops  and  archbishops  and  cardinals  of 
finance  must  kneel  to  him  as  Pope.  "  Nearest,  my  God,  to 
Thee,"  will  be  his  hymn  henceforth,  or  rather  till  some  luckier 
individual  shall  discover  a  still  cheaper  way  of  securing  the 
ocean's  treasures  and  thereby  become  Pope  in  his  stead.  This 
one  perfectly  logical  and  appalling  possibility  ought  to  be  suf- 
ficient in  itself  to  sweep  away  as  so  much  cobweb  all  the  soph- 
istry that  has  ever  been  devised  in  support  of  property  in 
ideas.  Gold,  after  all,  is  not  the  last  of  the  idols  ;  in  mental 
property  it  has  a  twin.  And  my  remaining  hope  is  that  science, 
with  its  new  discovery,  may  do  double  duty  as  an  iconoclast, 
and  destroy  them  both  at  one  fell  stroke. 


262 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


A  BOOK  THAT  IS  NOT  MILK  FOR  BABES. 

\Liberty,  November  23,  1889.] 

The  most  important  book  that  has  been  published  this  year 
comes  to  Liberty  from  the  press  of  the  J.  B.  Lippincott  Com- 
pany, of  Philadelphia.  It  is  a  little  volume  of  something  over 
a  hundred  very  small  pages,  printed  from  very  large  type.  For 
ten  years  to  come  it  probably  will  be  read  by  one  person 
where  "  Looking  Backward"  is  read  by  a  thousand,  but  the 
economic  teaching  which  it  contains  will  do  more  in  the  long 
run  to  settle  the  labor  question  than  will  ever  be  done  by 
"  Looking  Backward,"  "  Progress  and  Poverty,"  and  "  The  Co- 
operative Commonwealth  "  combined.  Its  title  is  "  Involun- 
tary Idleness  :  An  Exposition  of  the  Cause  of  the  Discrep- 
ancy Existing  between  the  Supply  of,  and  the  Demand  for, 
Labor  and  Its  Products."  The  book  consists  of  a  paper  read 
at  the  meeting  of  the  American  Economic  Association  in 
Philadelphia  on  December  29,  1888,  by  Hugo  Bilgram,  the 
author  of  that  admirable  little  pamphlet,  "  The  Iron  Law  of 
Wages,"  with  which  most  readers  of  Liberty  are  familiar.  I 
am  strongly  inclined  to  hail  Mr.  Bilgram's  new  work  as  the 
best  treatise  on  money  and  the  relation  of  money  to  labor 
that  has  been  written  in  the  English  language  since  Colonel 
William  B.  Greene  published  his  "  Mutual  Banking." 

The  author  prefaces  his  essay  with  a  very  convenient  and 
carefully  prepared  skeleton  of  his  argument,  which  I  repro- 
duce here,  since  it  gives  a  much  better  idea  of  the  book  than 
any  condensation  that  I  might  attempt  : 

The  aim  of  the  treatise  is  to  search  for  the  cause  of  the  lack  of  employ- 
ment, which  is  obviously  due  to  the  observed  fact  that  the  supply  of  com- 
modities and  services  exceeds  the  demand,  although  reason  dictates  that 
supply  and  demand  in  general  should  be  precisely  equal.  The  factor  de- 
stroying this  natural  equation  is  looked  for  among  the  conditions  that 
regulate  the  distribution  of  wealth, — i.e.,  its  division  into  Rent,  Interest, 
and  Wages. 

The  arguments  evolved  by  the  discussion  of  the  Rent  question,  which 
of  late  has  excited  much  public  interest,  being  unable  to  account  for  the 
apparent  surfeit  of  all  kinds  of  raw  materials,  the  topic  of  rent  is  elimi- 
nated by  assuming  all  local  advantages  to  be  equal. 

At  first  an  examination  is  made  of  the  relation  of  capital  to  the  pro- 
ductivity of  labor,  and  that  of  interest  on  capital  to  the  remuneration  for 
labor,  showing  that  high  interest  tends  to  reduce  the  productivity  of,  as 
well  as  the  remuneration  for,  labor.  Low  wages  being  also  concomitant 
with  a  scarcity  of  employment,  it  is  inferred  that  a  close  relation  exists  be- 
tween the  economic  cause  of  involuntary  idleness  and  the  law  of  interest. 


MONEY  AND  INTEREST. 


263 


Following  this  clue,  the  two  separate  meanings  of  the  ambiguous  word 

Capital"  are  compared,  showing  that  money,  which  can  never  be  used 
in  the  act  of  production,  cannot  be  capital  when  that  term  is  used  in  its 
concrete  sense  ;  and  since  capital  is  capable  of  producing  a  profit  only  when 
the  same  is  used  productively,  the  fact  that  interest  is  paid  for  money- 
loans,  when  that  which  is  loaned  cannot  be  used  productively,  must  be  traced 
to  an  independent  cause.  The  usual  argument  that  with  money  actual 
capital  can  be  purchased  is  rejected,  because  money  and  capital  would  not 
be  interchangeable  if  their  economic  properties  were  not  homogeneous. 
This  compels  a  search  for  a  property  inherent  in  money  that  can  account 
for  the  willingness  of  borrowers  to  pay  interest  on  money-loans. 

It  is  then  shown  that  interest  on  money-loans  is  paid  because  money 
affords  special  advantages  as  a  medium  of  exchange,  and  the  value  of  thb 
property  of  money  is  traced  to  its  ultimate  utility,  or,  in  other  words,  to 
the  increment  of  productivity  which  the  last  addendum  to  the  volume  of 
money  affords  by  facilitating  the  division  of  labor. 

Returning  to  the  question  of  interest  on  actual  capital, — i.e.,  the  excess 
of  value  produced  over  the  cost  of  production, — the  question  as  to  what 
determines  the  value  of  a  product  leads  to  the  assertion  that  capital-profit 
must  be  due  to  an  advantage  which  the  producer  possesses  over  the  mar- 
ginal producer.  This  is  found  to  be  due  to  the  interest  payable  by  the 
marginal  producer  on  money-loans. 

An  ideal  separation  of  the  financial  from  the  industrial  world  reveals  a 
tendency  of  the  industrial  class  to  drift  into  bankruptcy  by  force  of  con- 
ditions over  which  they  have  no  control.  Those  who  are  at  the  verge  of 
bankruptcy  being  the  marginal  producers,  others  who  are  free  of  debt  will 
reap  a  profit  corresponding  to  the  interest  payable  by  the  marginal  pro- 
ducers on  debts  equal  to  the  value  of  the  capital  they  employ  ;  hence  the 
rate  of  capital- profit  will  tend  to  become  equal  to  the  rate  of  interest  pay- 
able on  money-loans,  and  the  power  of  money  to  command  interest,  in- 
stead of  being  the  result,  is  in  reality  the  cause  of  capital-profit. 

The  inability  of  the  debtor  class  to  meet  their  obligations  increases  the 
risk  of  business  investments,  and  the  accumulation  of  money  in  the  hands 
of  the  financial  class  depriving  the  channels  of  commerce  of  the  needed 
medium  of  exchange,  a  stagnation  of  business  will  ensue,  which  readily 
accounts  for  the  accumulation  of  all  kinds  of  products  in  the  hands  of  the 
producers  and  for  the  consequent  dearth  of  employment.  The  losses  sus- 
tained by  the  lenders  of  money  involve  a  separation  of  interest  into  two 
branches,  risk-premium  and  interest  proper,  and  considering  that  the 
risk-premiums  equal  the  sum  total  of  all  relinquished  debts,  the  law  of 
interest  is  evolved  by  an  analysis  of  the  monetary  circulation  between  the 
debtors  and  creditors. 

This  analysis  leads  to  the  inference  that  an  expansion  of  the  volume  of 
money,  by  extending  the  issue  of  credit-money,  will  prevent  business 
stagnation  and  involuntary  idleness. 

The  objections  usually  urged  against  credit-money  are  considered  and 
found  untenable,  the  claim  that  interest  naturally  accrues  to  capital  is  dis- 
puted at  each  successive  stand-point,  and  in  the  concluding  remarks  an 
explanation  is  given  of  the  present  excess  of  supply  over  the  demand  of 
commodities  and  service,  confirming  the  conclusion  that  the  correction  of 
this  abnormal  state  is  contingent  upon  the  financial  measure  suggested. 

Admirably  accurate  as  the  foregoing  is  as  an  outline,  it  con- 
veys only  a  faint  idea  of  the  beautifully  calm,  logical,  and 
convincing  way  in  which  the  argument  is  worked  out  and  sus- 


264 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


tained.  It  seems  impossible  that  any  unbiased  mind  should 
follow  the  author's  reasoning  carefully  from  the  start  to  the 
finish  and  not  accept  the  conclusion  which  he  reaches  in  com- 
mon with  Liberty, — namely,  that  our  financial  legislation  is  the 
real  seat  of  the  prevailing  social  disorder,  and  that  the  only 
way  to  secure  remunerative  employment  to  all  who  are  able 
and  willing  to  work  is  to  abolish  the  restrictions  upon  the 
issue  of  money. 

Moreover,  the  author  not  only  establishes  the  strength  of 
his  own  position,  but  throws  numerous  and  powerful  side- 
lights upon  the  weaknesses  of  others.  He  shows  the  inade- 
quacy of  Henry  George's  theory  as  an  explanation  of  enforced 
idleness,  the  futility  of  protection,  tariff  reform,  factory  acts, 
and  anti-immigration  laws  as  measures  of  relief  from  stagna- 
tion of  commerce,  and  the  absurdity  of  the  fiat-money  theo- 
rists and  all  who  hold  with  them  that  the  value  of  money  is 
dependent  upon  its  volume.  If  Mr.  Lloyd,  who  lately  pro- 
posed the  use  of  communistic  credit-money,  will  get  Mr.  Bil- 
gram's  book  and  carefully  read  pages  64-77  inclusive,  I  think 
he  will  be  satisfied  of  the  unsoundness  of  any  credit-money 
system  that  does  not  specifically  assure  the  ultimate  redemp- 
tion of  each  note  by  value  pledged  for  its  security. 

Having  thus  declared  my  high  appreciation  of  this  book,  I 
may  add  a  word  or  two  by  way  of  criticism.  The  policy  of 
the  author  in  abandoning  what  he  himself  considers  the  true 
definition  of  the  word  capital  and  adopting  the  definition 
generally  sanctioned  by  the  economists  is  of  very  questionable 
utility.  It  is  true  that  he  does  not  allow  this  confessed  mis- 
use of  a  word  to  vitiate  his  argument,  but  it  forces  him  never- 
theless to  separate  capital  from  money  ;  and  thereby  he 
strengthens  the  hold  of  the  delusion  which  is  exploited  so 
effectively  by  the  champions  of  interest, — namely,  that  in  an 
exchange  of  goods  for  money  the  man  who  parts  with  the 
goods  is  deprived  of  capital  while  the  man  who  parts  with 
the  money  is  not.  If  Mr.  Bilgram  had  used  the  word  capital 
to  mean  what  he  thinks  it  means, — all  wealth  capable  of 
bringing  a  revenue  to  its  owner, — he  would  have  deprived 
his  opponents  of  their  favorite  device  for  confusing  the  popu- 
lar mind. 

But  this  is  a  question  of  words  only.  It  involves  no  differ- 
ence of  idea  between  Mr.  Bilgram  and  Liberty.  On  another 
point,  however,  there  is  substantial  disagreement.  When  Mr. 
Bilgram  proposes  that  the  government  shall  carry  on  (and  pre- 
sumably monopolize,  though  this  is  not  clearly  stated)  the 
business  of  issuing  money,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


265 


Liberty  cannot  follow  him.  It  goes  with  him  in  his  economy, 
but  not  in  his  politics.  There  are  at  least  three  valid  reasons, 
and  doubtless  others  also,  why  the  government  should  do 
nothing  of  the  kind. 

First,  the  government  is  a  tyrant  living  by  theft,  and  there- 
fore has  no  business  to  engage  in  any  business. 

Second,  the  government  has  none  of  the  characteristics  of 
a  successful  business  man,  being  wasteful,  careless,  clumsy,  and 
short-sighted  in  the  extreme. 

Third,  the  government  is  thoroughly  irresponsible,  having 
it  in  its  power  to  effectively  repudiate  its  obligations  at  any 
time. 

With  these  qualificatious  Liberty  gives  Mr.  Bilgram's  book 
enthusiastic  welcome.  Its  high  price,  $1.00,  will  debar  many 
from  reading  it ;  but  money  cannot  be  expended  more  wisely 
than  in  learning  the  truth  about  money. 


STATE  BANKING  VERSUS  MUTUAL  BANKING. 

{Liberty^  February  15,  1890.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

In  view  of  the  favorable  criticism  which  "Involuntary  Idleness"  re- 
ceived at  your  hands,  I  gladly  accept  the  invitation  to  state  my  reasons 
for  advocating  governmental  management  of  the  circulating  medium, 
rather  than  free  banking. 

My  studies  have  led  me  to  the  conviction  that  mutual  banking  cannot 
deprive  capital  of  its  power  to  bring  unearned  returns  to  its  owner.  Re- 
ferring to  my  exposition  of  the  monetary  circulation  between  the  financial 
and  the  industrial  group,  and  the  inevitable  effects  flowing  from  the  power 
of  money  to  bring  a  persistent  revenue,  it  follows  that  a  normal  condition 
can  only  be  attained  if  interest  on  money  loans  is  reduced  to  the  rate  of 
risk,  so  that,  in  the  aggregate,  interest  will  just  pay  for  the  losses  incurred 
by  bad  debts  ;  and  this  desideratum  will  not  result  from  mutual  banking. 

The  members  of  such  banks  must  no  doubt  be  in  some  way  assessed  to 
defray  the  expenses  and  losses  incurred  by  the  banking  associations,  and 
these  assessments  are  virtually  interest  payable  for  the  loan  of  mutual 
money.  While  these  rates  are  lower  than  the  current  rates  of  the  money- 
lenders, the  mutual  banks  will  be  more  and  more  patronized,  which  will 
have  a  depressing  effect  on  the  current  rate  of  interest.  But  the  increase 
of  membership  will  cease  as  soon  as  the  current  rate  has  adapted  itself  to 
the  rate  payable  to  the  mutual  banks. 

We  must  now  assume  that  the  assessments  of  the  mutual  banks  are  in 
substance  equitably  distributed  among  their  members  ;  otherwise,  such 
banks  cannot  compete  against  others  who  have  adopted  the  more 
equitable  rules.  These  assessments  must  obviously  cover  not  only  the 
expenses  of  the  banks,  but  also  occasional  losses  ;  and  that  such  losses 
should  be  assessed  in  proportion  to  the  rate  of  risk  attached  to  the 


266 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


security  each  "borrower  "  offers  for  the  faithful  redemption  of  his  obliga- 
tion requires  here  no  explication.  But  other  outlays,  such  as  the  making 
of  the  notes,  together  with  all  the  attending  expenses,  must  also  be 
paid  by  the  members  of  the  mutual  banks,  and  this  increases  the  interest 
virtually  payable  by  the  borrowers  beyond  the  rate  of  risk.  Con- 
sequently competition  will  be  incompetent  to  lower  the  current  rate  of 
interest  to  this  desirable  point.  Money-lenders  will  therefore  still  be 
able  to  obtain  an  income  from  the  mere  loan  of  money,  and  capital  will 
continue  to  return  interest  to  the  wealthy.  The  germ  of  the  inequitable 
congestion  of  wealth  will  still  linger  after  the  introduction  of  mutual 
banking. 

At  this  point  the  question  arises  as  to  who  should  pay  for  that  paft  of 
the  expenses  of  the  financial  system  that  relates  to  the  production  of  the 
money  tokens.  The  answer  is  not  difficult  when  it  is  considered  that 
the  benefit  of  the  medium  of  exchange  accrues  to  those  who  use  it. 
They  should  contribute,  as  near  as  possible,  in  the  proportion  in  which 
their  handling  wears  the  tokens,  for  in  the  long  run  the  cost  of  produc- 
tion will  virtually  resolve  itself  into  the  cost  of  replacement.  Not  the 
borrowers,  then,  who  as  members  of  the  mutual  banks  would  be  obliged 
to  do  so,  but  the  people  at  large,  in  whose  hands  the  money  circulates, 
are  in  equity  under  the  obligation  of  this  expense.  And  to  accomplish 
this  I  see  no  other  way  than  for  the  people  to  instruct  their  representa- 
tives to  make  the  notes  at  public  expense,  distribute  them  according  to 
the  demand,  and  charge  no  cost  to  the  borrowers  exceeding  the  rate  of 
risk  attached  to  the  securities  offered  by  them. 

I  should  of  course  never  attempt  to  deny  that  mutual  banking  would 
be  by  far  better  than  the  present  oppressive  system.  But  the  question 
at  issue  is  between  mutual  banking,  which  would  not  remove  but  only 
mitigate  the  source  of  involuntary  idleness,  and  a  system  involving  a 
complete  eradication  of  the  cause  of  the  discrepancy  of  the  supply  and 
the  demand  of  commodities.  My  preference  for  the  latter  does,  how- 
ever, not  imply  that  any  restrictions  should  be  placed  upon  mutual 
banking  ;  such  institutions  could  for  obvious  reasons  not  compete 
against  the  government  institution,  and  would  fail  to  find  a  suitable  soil 
for  their  growth. 

Before  concluding  I  also  wish  to  meet  the  objection  of  the  critic  of 
"  Involuntary  Idleness"  to  the  use  of  the  word  "Capital  "  in  its  con- 
crete sense.  Having  frequent  occasion  to  refer  to  "  labor  products  used 
for  further  production  "  in  contradistinction  to  "  money,"  I  elected  to 
use  the  shorter  term  "  capital,"  especially  as  I  had  no  need  to  refer, 
during  the  discussion,  to  its  other  and  perhaps  more  appropriate  meaning. 
I  attempted  to  express  thoughts,  and  made  use  of  words  as  tools,  the 
selection  of  which  cannot  commit  me  to  any  opinion.  In  fact,  I  am 
convinced  that  "Capital  "in  contradistinction  to  "Wealth"  must  lose 
its  significance  in  either  of  its  concepts  as  soon  as  the  people  learn  to  make 
honest  laws. 

Yours  truly,       Hugo  Bilgram. 

Philadelphia,  January  18,  1890. 

Mr.  Bilgram,  then,  if  I  understand  him,  prefers  government 
banking  to  mutual  banking,  because  with  the  former  the  rate 
of  discount  would  simply  cover  risk,  all  banking  expenses 
being  paid  out  of  the  public  treasury,  while  with  the  latter  the 
rate  of  discount  would  cover  both  risk  and  banking  expenses, 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


267 


which  in  his  opinion  would' place  the  burden  of  banking  ex- 
penses upon  the  borrowers  instead  of  upon  the  people.  The 
answer  to  this  is  simple  and  decisive  :  the  burden  of  discount, 
no  matter  what  elements,  many  or  few,  may  constitute  it,  falls 
ultimately,  under  any  system,  not  on  the  borrowers,  but  on  the 
people.  Broadly  speaking,  all  the  interest  paid  is  paid  by 
the  people.  Under  mutual  banking  the  expenses  of  the  banks 
would,  it  is  true,  be  paid  directly  by  the  borrowers,  but  the 
latter  would  recover  this  from  the  people  in  the  prices  placed 
upon  their  products.  And  it  seems  to  me  much  more  scien- 
tific that  the  people  should  thus  pay  these  expenses  through 
the  borrowers  in  the  regular  channels  of  exchange  than  that 
they  should  follow  the  communistic  method  of  paying  them 
through  the  public  treasury. 

Mr.  Bilgram's  statement  that  money-lenders  who,  besides 
being  compensated  for  risk,  are  compensated  for  their  labor 
as  bankers  and  for  their  incidental  expenses  "  thereby  obtain 
an  income  from  the  mere  loan  of  money  "  is  incomprehensible 
to  me.  He  might  just  as  well  say  that  under  government 
banking  the  officials  who  should  receive  salaries  from  the 
treasury  for  carrying  on  the  business  would  thereby  obtain  an 
income  from  the  mere  loan  of  money.  Under  a  free  system 
the  banker  is  as  simply  and  truly  paid  only  the  normal  wage 
of  his  labor  as  is  the  official  under  a  government  system. 

But,  since  Mr.  Bilgram  does  not  propose  to  place  any  re- 
striction upon  private  banking,  I  have  no  quarrel  with  him. 
He  is  welcome  to  his  opinion  that  private  banking  could  not 
compete  with  the  governmental  institution.  I  stoutly  main- 
tain the  contrary,  and  the  very  existence  of  the  financial 
prohibitions  is  the  best  evidence  that  I  am  right.  That  which 
can  succeed  by  intrinsic  merit  never  seeks  a  legal  bolster. 

1  am  agreeably  disappointed.  In  challenging  Mr.  Bilgram 
on  this  point,  I,  knowing  his  intellectual  acumen,  had  braced 
myself  to  withstand  the  most  vigorous  onslaught  possible 
against  Anarchism  in  finance,  but  it  was  a  needless  strain. 
Mr.  Bilgram  has  struck  me  with  a  feather. 


268  INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


MR.  BILGRAM'S  REJOINDER. 

[Liberty,  April  19,  1890.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

My  rejoinder  on  your  remarks  on  my  last  communication,  in  your 
issue  of  February  15,  was  unavoidably  delayed. 

Above  all,  I  must  admit  an  omission  in  my  exposition,  but,  since  it  was 
on  both  sides  of  the  question,  the  result  remains  unaffected.  I  had  paid 
no  attention  to  the  labor  involved  in  making  loans.  Including  this  ad- 
mitted factor,  my  argument  is  this :  The  expenses  of  mutual  banks  may  be 
divided  into  three  categories, — i.e. ,  risks,  cost  of  making  loans,  and  cost 
of  making  the  tokens.  These  three  items  are  represented  in  the  interest 
payable  by  the  patrons  of  such  banks,  and,  while  they  determine  the 
current  rate  of  interest,  those  who  lend  money  which  they  have  acquired 
have  to  bear  only  two  of  these  items,  and  will  obtain  interest  composed 
of  the  three,  and  consequently  receive  pay  for  work  they  have  not  per- 
formed. And  capital  having  the  power  of  bringing  an  unearned  income 
as  long  as  money  is  thus  blessed,  I  still  hold  that  justice  is  not  attained 
until  the  gross  interest  is  reduced  to  the  rate  of  risk  and  cost  of  mak- 
ing loans,  the  cost  of  making  the  tokens  being  defrayed  by  public 
contributions. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  "the  burden  of  discount  falls  ultimately,  not 
on  the  borrowers,  but  on  the  people  "  ;  the  trouble  is  that  the  people  are 
compelled  to  pay  more  than  this  discount,  and  my  desire  is  that  they 
should  cease  to  pay  this  excess  which  now  falls  into  the  hands  of  the 
owners  of  capital. 

Should  the  question  of  free  banking  become  a  political  issue,  I  should 
heartily  cooperate  with  you  in  furthering  the  object.  But  this  does  not 
prevent  me  from  advocating  a  government  issue,  provided  the  borrowers 
are  charged  no  more  than  risk  and  cost  of  making  the  loans,  as  a 
preferable  measure.    Yours  truly,  Hugo  Bilgram. 

Philadelphia,  March  31,  1890. 

To  the  above  there  are  at  least  two  answers.  The  first  is 
that  that  factor  in  the  rate  of  interest  which  represents  the 
cost  of  making  tokens  is  so  insignificant  (probably  less  than 
one-tenth  of  one  per  cent.,  guessing  at  it)  that  the  people 
could  well  afford  (if  there  were  no  alternative)  to  let  a  few  in- 
dividuals profit  to  that  extent  rather  than  suffer  the  enormous 
evils  that  result  from  transferring  enterprise  from  private 
to  government  control.  I  am  not  so  enamored  of  absolute 
equality  that  I  would  sacrifice  both  hands  rather  than  one 
finger. 

The  second  answer  is  that  no  private  money-lenders  could, 
under  a  free  system,  reap  even  the  small  profit  referred  to. 
Mr.  Bilgram  speaks  of  "  those  who  lend  money  which  they 
have  acquired."  Acquired  how?  Any  money  which  they 
have  acquired  must  have  originated  with  issuers  who  paid  the 
post  of  making  the  tokens,  and  every  time  it  has  changed 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


269 


hands  the  burden  of  this  cost  has  been  transferred  with  it. 
Is  it  likely  that  men  who  acquire  money  by  paying  this  cost 
will  lend  it  to  others  without  exacting  this  cost  ?  If  they 
should,  they  would  be  working  for  others  for  nothing, — a 
very  different  thing  from  "receiving  pay  for  work  they  had 
not  performed."  No  man  can  lend  money  unless  he  either 
issues  it  himself  and  pays  the  cost  of  making  the  tokens,  or 
else  buys  or  borrows  it  from  others  to  whom  he  must  pay 
that  cost. 


FREE  MONEY. 

[Liberty,  December  13,  1884.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

The  "  Picket  Duty"  remarks  of  November  22  in  regard  to  the  importance 
of  "free  money"  (with  which  I  mainly  agree)  impel  me  to  say  a  few 
words  upon  the  subject.  It  is  desirable,  it  seems  to  me,  that  Liberty 
should  give  its  ideas  upon  that  subject  in  a  more  systematic  form  than  it 
has  yet  done  (1).  To  be  sure,  it  is  easy  for  those  who  think  to  see  that, 
if  all  laws  in  regard  to  money  were  abolished,  commerce  would  readily 
provide  its  instruments  of  exchange.  This  might  be  promissory  notes,  or 
warehouse  receipts,  bills  of  lading,  etc.;  but,  whatever  it  might  be,  the 
Anarchist  could  not  doubt  it  would  be  better  than  that  ever  issued  under 
monopoly. 

Theoretically,  at  least,  Liberty  has  expressed  the  idea  that  any  circulat- 
ing medium  should  be  made  redeemable  ;  but  in  what?  If  in  gold,  or  in 
gold  and  silver,  does  it  not  involve  the  principle  of  a  legal  tender,  or  of 
a  tender  of  "  common  consent?"  and  they  do  not  greatly  differ  (2).  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  great  fraud  in  regard  to  money  starts  just  here, 
and  vitiates  all  forms  of  finance  as  of  trade  (3).  I  define  money  to  be 
a  commodity  or  representative  of  a  commodity,  accepted  by  or  forced 
upon  the  common  consent,  as  an  invariable  ratio  and  medium  of  exchange. 
Now,  since  the  price  of  all  things  else  is  variable  and  subject  to  extreme 
fluctuations,  the  dollar  in  exchange,  and  especially  where  the  exchange 
is  suspended  as  in  borrowing,  or  buying  on  credit,  becomes,  as  friend 
Pink  suggests,  a  "war  club"  rather  than  a  tool  or  instrument  of 
commerce. 

Pardon  me  if  I  inflict  some  technicalities  upon  the  readers  of  Liberty. 
I  would  discard  the  use  of  the  word  value  from  questions  of  exchange,  or 
else  divide  its  several  parts,  as  value  in  use,  value  in  service  and  compen- 
sation, and  value  in  exchange.  But  ratio  is  a  much  better  word.  I 
would  then  define  the  Ratio  of  Utility  to  be  the  proportion  in  which  any 
thing  or  service  effects  useful  ends,  in  sustaining  human  life  or  adding  to 
human  enjoyment, —a  constant  Ratio. 

The  Ratio  of  Service,  the  proportion  in  which  different  services,  of  the 
same  duration  in  time,  effect  useful  ends. 

The  Ratio  of  Exchange,  the  proportion  in  which  one  commodity  or 
service  will  exchange  for  another  service  or  commodity  at  the  same  time 
and  place.    This  is  a  variable  ratio,  whose  mean  is  the  ratio  of  service. 


270 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


I  cannot  stop  now  to  argue  the  correctness  of  these  definitions.  It 
must  be  seen,  unless  a  commodity  could  be  found  which  would  answer 
every  useful  purpose,  and  could  be  readily  obtained  by  all,  it  could  not 
be  made  a  tender  without  inflicting  great  injustice  on  the  many.  But  as 
such  commodity  cannot  be  found,  a  commodity,  gold,  has  been  assumed" 
to  have  an  invariable  value,  although  the  most  variable  in  value  of  all  the 
metals,  and  about  the  least  useful  ;  of  a  limited  and  irregular  production 
and  widely  varying  demand.  With  the  addition  of  silver  to  the  standard, 
the  great  injustice  to  labor  is  only  divided,  not  changed. 

As  defined  above,  the  only  invariable  ratio  is  that  of  use.  A  pound  of 
flour  of  the  same  quality  will  at  all  times  and  places  satisfy  the  same  de- 
mand for  food.  The  hundredweight  of  coal  will  at  all  times  and  places 
give  off  the  same  amount  of  heat  in  combustion,  etc.,  having  no  reference 
either  to  the  money  or  labor  cost.  Now,  since  labor  is  the  only  thing 
which  can  procure  or  produce  articles  of  use,  that  is  naturally  the  con- 
trolling element  in  exchange,  and  the  only  thing  that  commands  a  stable 
price  or  furnishes  a  stable  ratio. 

Though  gold  is  assumed  as  the  standard  of  value,  it  is  well  known  that 
for  ages  the  "  promise  to  pay  "  this  has  constituted  mainly  the  currency 
and  medium  of  exchange  of  most  nations. 

The  method  of  issuing  this  promissory  money  has  been  a  great  injustice 
to  industry,  and  its  almost  infinite  extension  of  the  usurpation  of  the  gold- 
tender  fraud  is  now  robbing  labor  of  a  large  share  of  its  production  by  the 
control  it  gives  to  the  usurer  and  speculator,  who  can  make  the  rate  low 
when  produce  is  coming  under  their  control,  and  high  when  it  is  being  re- 
turned for  use  to  the  people  ;  and  can  make  money  scarce  and  dear  when 
they  loan  it,  and  plenty  and  cheap  when  they  gather  it  in. 

I  think  I  have  shown  that  the  base  of  the  money  evil  lies  mainly  in  the 
monstrous  assumption  that  the  value  of  one  of  the  most  variable  of  things 
should  be  assumed  to  be  an  invariable  quantity,  and  the  standard  of  meas- 
urement of  all  other  things.  A  gum  elastic  yardstick  or  gallon  measure, 
or  a  shifting  scale-beam,  would  suggest  far  more  equitable  dealing. 

I  know  of  but  one  invariable  standard,  and  that  is  labor  ;  but  what  is 
its  unit?  And  by  what  method  shall  it  be  expressed?  Can  Liberty  give 
us  light  upon  this  subject  ?  (4)  I  have  yet  seen  no  feasible  method  by 
which  credit  or  debt  can  serve  safely  as  money,  nor  any  honest  way  in 
which  fiat  money  can  be  put  in  circulation.  It  appears  to  me  now 
that,  while  men  seek  credit,  they  will  have  to  pay  interest,  and  that  only 
by  restoring  opportunity  to  those  who  are  now  denied  it  by  our  monopo- 
lies of  land,  of  money,  and  of  public  franchises,  and  so  relieving  them  of 
the  necessity  of  borrowing,  can  we  hope  to  mitigate  the  evils  of  our  money 
and  trade  iniquities.  (5) 

Credit  being  an  incompleted  exchange,  in  which  one  of  the  equivalents 
is  not  transferred,  if  we  are  to  acknowledge  it  as  an  economic  transaction, 
I  see  not  why  we  should  not  accept  that  also  where  neither  of  the  equiva- 
lents are  transferred,  as  in  produce  and  stock-gambling.  (6)  McLeod,  I 
think,  saw  this  dilemma,  and  therefore  holds  that  the  negotiable  promis- 
sory note  is  payment  for  the  things  for  which  it  is  given.  Yet,  neverthe- 
less, at  maturity  it  will  require  a  transfer  of  the  counterbalancing  equiv- 
alent, just  the  same  as  if  a  mere  book  account. 

Credit  is  doubtless  necessary  under  an  inverted  system  of  industry, 
finance,  and  trade  ;  but  I  am  unable  to  see  that  it  has  any  place  in  an  honest 
state  of  things,  except  to  conserve  value,  as  where  one  puts  things  in  an- 
other's care.  It  is  vastly  convenient,  no  doubt,  for  the  profit-monger  and 
speculator,  as  for  the  usurer,  and  without  it  neither  could  well  thrive,  In 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


271 


agreeing  with  the  Anarchists  that  the  State  should  not  interfere  to  prevent, 
regulate,  or  enforce  credit  contracts,  perhaps  I  go  beyond  them  in  exclud- 
ing it  from  any  economic  recognition  whatever,  except  as  a  means  of  con- 
serving goods  from  decay  and  depreciation,  involving  always  a  service  for 
which  the  creditor  should  pay. 

J.  K.  Ingalls. 

(1)  Liberty  is  published  not  so  much  to  thoroughly  inform  its 
readers  regarding  the  ideas  which  it  advocates  as  to  interest 
them  to  seek  this  thorough  information  through  other  chan- 
nels. For  instance,  in  regard  to  free  money,  there  is  a  book — 
"  Mutual  Banking,"  by  William  B.  Greene — which  sets  forth 
the  evils  of  money  monopoly  and  the  blessings  of  gratuitous 
credit  in  a  perfectly  plain  and  convincing  way  to  all  who  will 
take  the  pains  to  study  and  understand  it.  Liberty  can  only 
state  baldly  the  principles  which  Greene  advocates  and  hint 
at  some  of  their  results.  Whomsoever  such  statements  and 
hints  serve  to  interest  can  and  will  secure  the  book  of  me  for  a 
small  sum.  Substantially  the  same  views,  presented  in  differ- 
ent ways,  are  to  be  found  in  the  financial  writings  of  Lysander 
Spooner,  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews,  Josiah  Warren,  and,  above 
all,  P.  J.  Proudhon,  whose  untranslated  works  contain  untold 
treasures,  which  I  hope  some  day  to  put  within  the  reach  of 
English  readers. 

(2)  Yes,  it  does  involve  one  of  these,  but  between  the  two 
there  is  all  the  difference  that  there  is  between  force  and  free- 
dom, authority  and  liberty.  And  where  the  tender  is  one  of 
"common  consent,"  those  who  do  not  like  it  are  at  liberty  to 
consent  in  common  to  use  any  other  and  better  one  that  they 
can  devise. 

(3)  It  is  difficult  for  me  to  see  any  fraud  in  promising  to 
pay  a  certain  thing  in  a  certain  time,  or  on  demand,  and  keeping 
the  promise.  That  is  what  we  do  when  we  issue  redeemable 
money  and  afterwards  redeem  it.  The  fraud  in  regard  to 
money  consists  not  in  this,  but  in  limiting  by  law  the  security 
for  these  promises  to  pay  to  a  special  kind  of  property,  limited 
in  quantity  and  easily  monopolizable. 

(4)  It  is  doubtful  if  there  is  anything  more  variable  in  its 
purchasing  power  than  labor.  The  causes  of  this  are  partly 
natural,  such  as  the  changing  conditions  of  production,  and 
partly  and  principally  artificial,  such  as  the  legal  monopolies 
that  impart  fictitious  values.  But  labor  expended  in  certain 
directions  is  unquestionably  more  constant  in  its  average  re- 
sults than  when  expended  in  other  directions.  Hence  the  ad- 
vantage of  using  the  commodities  resulting  from  the  former  for 
the  redemption  of  currency  whenever  redemption  shall  be  de- 


272 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


manded.  Whether  gold  and  silver  are  among  these  commo- 
dities is  a  question,  not  of  principle,  but  of  statistics.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  holders  of  good  redeemable  money  seldom 
ask  for  any  other  redemption  than  its  acceptance  in  the  mar- 
ket and  its  final  cancellation  by  the  issuer's  restoration  of  the 
securities  on  which  it  was  issued.  But  in  case  any  other  re- 
demption is  desired,  it  is  necessary  to  adopt  for  the  purpose 
some  commodity  easily  transferable  and  most  nearly  invariable 
in  value. 

(5)  Does  Mr.  Ingalls  mean  that  all  money  must  be  abolished  ? 
I  can  see  no  other  inference  from  his  position.  For  there 
are  only  two  kinds  of  money, — commodity  money  and  credit 
money.  The  former  he  certainly  does  not  believe  in,  the 
latter  he  thinks  fraudulent  and  unsafe.  Are  we,  then,  to  stop 
exchanging  the  products  of  bur  labor  ? 

(6)  It  is  clearly  the  right  of  every  man  to  gamble  if  he 
chooses  to,  and  he  has  as  good  a  right  to  make  his  bets  on  the 
rise  and  fall  of  grain  prices  as  on  anything  else  ;  only  he  must 
not  gamble  with  loaded  dice,  or  be  allowed  special  privileges 
whereby  he  can  control  the  price  of  grain.  Hence,  in  a  free 
and  open  market,  these  transactions  where  neither  equiva- 
alent  is  transferred  are  legitimate  enough.  But  they  are  un- 
wise, because,  apart  from  the  winning  or  losing  of  the  bet, 
there  is  no  advantage  to  be  gained  from  them.  Transactions, 
on  the  other  hand,  in  which  only  one  equivalent  is  immedi- 
ately transferred  are  frequently  of  the  greatest  advantage,  as 
they  enable  men  to  get  possession  of  tools  which  they  imme- 
diately need,  but  cannot  immediately  pay  for.  Of  course  the 
promise  to  pay  is  liable  to  be  more  or  less  valuable  at  ma- 
turity than  when  issued,  but  so  is  the  property  originally 
transferred.  The  borrower  is  no  more  exempt  than  the 
lender  from  the  variations  in  value.  And  the  interests  of  the 
holder  of  property  who  neither  borrows  nor  lends  is  also  just 
as  much  affected  by  them.  There  is  an  element  of  chance  in 
all  property  relations.  So  far  as  this  is  due  to  monopoly  and 
privilege,  we  must  do  our  best  to  abolish  it  ;  so  far  as  it  is 
natural  and  inevitable,  we  must  get  along  with  it  as  best  we  can, 
but  not  be  frightened  by  it  into  discarding  credit  and  money, 
the  most  potent  instruments  of  association  and  civilization. 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


273 


FREE  MONEY  FIRST. 

[Liberty,  March  27,  1886.] 

J.  M.  M'Gregor,  a  writer  for  the  Detroit  Labor  Leaf,  thinks 
free  land  the  chief  desideratum.  And  yet  he  acknowledges 
that  the  wage-worker  can't  go  from  any  of  our  manufactur- 
ing centres  to  the  western  lands,  because  "  such  a  move 
would  involve  a  cash  outlay  of  a  thousand  dollars,  which  he 
has  not  got,  nor  can  he  get  it."  It  would  seem,  then,  that 
free  land,  though  greatly  to  be  desired,  is  not  as  sorely  needed 
here  and  now  as  free  capital.  And  this  same  need  of  capital 
would  be  equally  embarrassing  if  the  eastern  lands  were  free, 
for  still  more  capital  would  be  required  to  stock  and  work  a 
farm  than  the  wage-worker  can  command.  Under  our  present 
money  system  he  could  not  even  get  capital  by  putting  up  his 
farm  as  collateral,  unless  he  would  agree  to  pay  a  rate  of  in- 
terest that  would  eat  him  up  in  a  few  years.  Therefore,  free 
land  is  of  little  value  to  labor  without  free  capital,  while  free 
capital  would  be  of  inestimable  benefit  to  labor  even  if  land 
should  not  be  freed  for  some  time  to  come.  For  with  it  labor 
could  go  into  other  industries  on  the  spot  and  achieve  its  inde- 
pendence. Not  free  land,  then,  but  free  money  is  the  chief 
desideratum.  It  is  in  the  perception  of  this  prime  importance 
Of  the  money  question  that  the  greenbackers,  despite  their  ut- 
terly erroneous  solution  of  it,  show  their  marked  superiority  to 
the  State  Socialists  and  the  land  nationalizationists. 

The  craze  to  get  people  upon  the  land  is  one  of  the  insan- 
ities that  has  dominated  social  reformers  ever  since  social  re- 
form was  first  thought  of.  It  is  a  great  mistake.  Of  agricul- 
ture it  is  as  true  as  of  every  other  industry  that  there  should 
be  as  few  people  engaged  in  it  as  possible, — that  is,  just  enough 
to  supply  the  world  with  all  the  agricultural  products  which 
it  wants.  The  fewer  farmers  there  are,  after  this  point  of 
necessary  supply  is  reached,  the  more  useful  people  there  are 
to  engage  in  other  industries  which  have  not  yet  reached  this 
point,  and  to  devise  and  work  at  new  industries  hitherto  un- 
thought  of.  It  is  altogether  likely  that  we  have  too  many 
farmers  now.  It  is  not  best  that  any  more  of  us  should  be- 
come farmers,  even  if  every  homestead  could  be  made  an 
Arcadia.  The  plough  is  very  well  in  its  way,  and  Arcadia  was 
very  well  in  its  day.  But  the  way  of  the  plough  is  not  as  wide 
as  the  world,  and  the  world  has  outgrown  the  day  of  Arcadia. 
Human  life  henceforth  is  to  be,  not  a  simple,  but  a  complex 


274 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


thing.  The  wants  and  aspirations  of  mankind  are  daily  mul- 
tiplying. They  can  be  satisfied  only  by  the  diversification  of 
industry,  which  is  the  method  of  progress  and  the  record  of 
civilization.  This  is  one  of  the  great  truths  which  Lysander 
Spooner  has  so  long  been  shouting  into  unwilling  ears.  But 
the  further  diversification  of  industry  in  such  away  as  to  bene- 
fit, no  longer  the  few  and  the  idle,  but  the  many  and  the 
industrious,  depends  upon  the  control  of  capital  by  labor. 
And  this,  as  Proudhon,  Warren,  Greene,  and  Spooner  have 
shown,  can  be  secured  only  by  a  free  money  system. 


STOP  THE  MAIN  LEAK  FIRST. 

[Liberty,  May  i,  1886.] 

In  answer  to  my  article,  "  Free  Money  First,"  in  Liberty  of 
March  27,  in  which  was  discussed  the  comparative  impor- 
tance of  the  money  and  land  questions,  J.  M.  M'Gregor,  of 
the  Detroit  Labor  Leaf,  says  :  "  I  grant  free  money  first.  I 
firmly  believe  free  money  will  come  first,  too,  though  my 
critic  and  myself  may  be  widely  at  variance  in  regard  to  what 
would  constitute  free  money."  I  mean  by  free  money  the 
utter  absence  of  restriction  upon  the  issue  of  all  money  not 
fraudulent.  If  Mr.  M'Gregor  believes  in  this,  I  am  heartily 
glad.  I  should  like  to  be  half  as  sure  as  he  is  that  it  really  is 
coming  first.  From  the  present  temper  of  the  people  it  looks 
to  me  as  if  nothing  free  would  come  first.  They  seem  to  be 
bent  on  trying  every  form  of  compulsion.  In  this  current  Mr. 
M'Gregor  is  far  to  the  fore  with  his  scheme  of  land  taxation 
on  the  Henry  George  plan,  and  although  he  may  believe  free 
money  will  be  first  in  time,  he  clearly  does  not  consider  it  first 
in  importance.  This  last-mentioned  priority  he  awards  to 
land  reform,  and  it  was  his  position  in  that  regard  that  my 
article  was  written  to  dispute. 

The  issue  between  us,  thus  confined,  hangs  upon  the  truth 
or  falsity  of  Mr.  M'Gregor's  statement  that  "  to-day  landlord- 
ism, through  rent  and  speculation,  supports  more  idlers  than 
any  other  system  of  profit-robbing  known  to  our  great  common- 
wealth." I  take  it  that  Mr.  M'Gregor,  by  "rent,"  means 
ground-rent  exclusively,  and,  by  the  phrase  "  supports  more 
idlers,"  means  takes  more  from  labor  ;  otherwise,  his  state- 
ment has  no  pertinence  to  his  position.  For  all  rent  except 
ground-rent  would  be  almost  entirely  and  directly  abolished 


MONEY  AND  INTEREST. 


275 


by  free  money,  and  the  evil  of  rent  to  labor  depends,  not  so 
much  on  the  number  of  idlers  it  supports,  as  on  the  aggregate 
amount  and  quality  of  support  it  gives  them,  whether  they  be 
many  or  few  in  number.  Mr.  M'Gregor's  statement,  then, 
amounts  to  this  :  that  ground-rent  takes  more  from  labor  than 
any  other  form  of  usury.  It  needs  no  statistics  to  disprove 
this.  The  principal  forms  of  usury  are  interest  on  money 
loaned  or  invested,  profits  made  in  buying  and  selling,  rent  of 
buildings  of  all  sorts,  and  ground-rent.  A  moment's  reflection 
will  show  any  one  that  the  amount  of  loaned  or  invested  capi- 
tal bearing  interest  in  this  country  to-day  far  exceeds  in  value 
the  amount  of  land  yielding  rent.  The  item  of  interest  alone 
is  a  much  more  serious  burden  on  the  people  than  that  of 
ground-rent.  Much  less,  then,  does  ground-rent  equal  interest 
plus  profit  plus  rent  of  buildings.  But  to  make  Mr.  M'Gregor's 
argument  really  valid  it  must  exceed  all  these  combined.  For 
a  true  money  reform,  I  repeat,  would  abolish  almost  entirely 
and  directly  every  one  of  these  forms  of  usury  except  ground- 
rent,  while  a  true  land  reform  would  directly  abolish  only 
ground-rent.  Therefore,  unless  labor  pays  more  in  ground-rent 
than  in  interest,  profit,  and  rent  of  buildings  combined,  the 
money  question  is  of  more  importance  than  the  land  question. 
There  are  countries  where  this  is  the  case,  but  the  United  States 
is  not  one  of  them. 

It  should  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  free  money,  in  destroy- 
ing the  power  to  accumulate  large  fortunes  in  the  ordinary 
industries  of  life,  will  put  a  very  powerful  check  upon  the 
scramble  for  corner-lots  and  other  advantageous  positions,  and 
thereby  have  a  considerable  influence  upon  ground-rent  itself. 

"  How  can  capital  be  free,"  asks  Mr.  M'Gregor,  "  when  it 
cannot  get  rid  of  rent  ? "  It  cannot  be  entirely  free  till  it  can 
get  rid  of  rent  ;  but  it  will  be  infinitely  freer  if  it  gets  rid  of 
interest,  profit,  and  rent  of  buildings  and  still  keeps  ground- 
rent  than  if  it  gets  rid  of  ground-rent  and  keeps  the  other 
forms  of  usury.  Give  us  free  money,  the  first  great  step  to 
Anarchy,  and  we'll  attend  to  ground-rent  afterwards. 


276 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


AN  INDISPENSABLE  ACCIDENT. 

[Liberty,  June  28,  1884.] 

The  persistent  way  in  which  Greenbackers  dodge  argument 
on  the  money  question  is  very  tiresome  to  a  reasoning  mortal. 
Let  an  Anarchist  give  a  Greenbacker  his  idea  of  a  good  cur- 
rency in  the  issue  of  which  no  government  has  any  part,  and  it 
is  ten  to  one  that  he  will  answer  :  "  Oh,  that's  not  money.  It 
isn't  legal  tender.  Money  is  that  thing  which  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land  declares  to  be  legal  tender  for  debts  in  the 
country  where  that  law  is  supreme." 

Brick  Pomeroy  made  such  an  answer  to  Stephen  Pearl 
Andrews  recently,  and  appeared  to  think  that  he  had  said 
something  final.  Now,  in  the  first  place,  this  definition  is  not 
correct,  for  that  is  money  which  performs  the  functions  of 
money,  no  matter  who  issues  it.  But  even  if  it  were  correct, 
of  what  earthly  consequence  could  it  be  ?  Names  are  nothing. 
Who  cares  whether  the-  Anarchistic  currency  be  called  money 
or  something  else  ?  Would  it  make  exchange  easy  ?  Would 
it  make  production  active  ?  Would  it  measure  prices  accu- 
rately ?  Would  it  distribute  wealth  honestly?  Those  are  the 
questions  to  be  asked  concerning  it ;  not  whether  it  meets 
the  arbitrary  definition  adopted  by  a  given  school.  A  system 
of  finance  capable  of  supplying  a  currency  satisfying  the  above 
requirements  is  a  solution  of  what  is  generally  known  as  the 
money  question  ;  and  Greenbackers  may  as  well  quit  now  as 
later  trying  to  bind  people  to  this  fact  by  paltry  quibbling 
with  words. 

But  after  thus  rebuking  Brick  Pomeroy's  evasion  of  Mr. 
Andrews,  something  needs  to  be  said  in  amendment  of  Mr. 
Andrews's  position  as  stated  by  him  in  an  admirable  article 
on  "  The  Nature  of  Money,"  published  in  the  New  York 
Truth  Seeker  of  March  8,  1884.  Mr.  Andrews  divides  the 
properties  of  money  into  essentials,  incidentals,  and  acciden- 
tals. The  essential  properties  of  money,  he  says, — those  in 
the  absence  of  which  it  is  not  money  whatever  else  it  may 
have,  and  in  the  possession  of  which  it  is  money  whatever  else 
it  may  lack, — are  those  of  measuring  mutual  estimates  in  an 
exchange,  recording  a  commercial  transaction,  and  inspiring 
confidence  in  a  promise  which  it  makes.  All  other  properties 
of  money  Mr.  Andrews  considers  either  incidental  or  acciden- 
tal, and  among  the  accidental  properties  he  mentions  the 


MONEY  AND  INTEREST. 


277 


security  or  "  collateral  "  which  may  back  up  and  guarantee 
money. 

Now  as  an  analysis  made  for  the  purpose  of  arriving  at  a 
definition,  this  is  entirely  right.  No  exception  can  be  taken 
to  it.  But  it  is  seriously  to  be  feared  that  nearly  every  person 
who  reads  it  will  infer  that,  because  security  or  "collateral" 
is  an  accidental  feature  of  money,  it  is  an  unimportant  and 
well-nigh  useless  one.  And  that  is  where  the  reader  will  make 
a  great  mistake.  It  is  true  that  money  is  money,  with  or  with- 
out security,  but  it  cannot  be  a  perfect  or  reliable  money  in 
the  absence  of  security  ;  nay,  it  cannot  be  a  money  worth  con- 
sidering in  this  age.  The  advance  from  barter  to  unsecured 
money  is  a  much  shorter  and  less  important  step  logically  than 
that  from  unsecured  money  to  secured  money.  The  rude 
vessel  in  which  primitive  men  first  managed  to  float  upon  the 
water  very  likely  had  all  the  essentials  of  a  boat,  but  it  was 
much  nearer  to  no  boat  at  all  than  it  was  to  the  stanch, 
swift,  and  sumptuous  Cunarder  that  now  speeds  its  way  across 
the  Atlantic  in  a  week.  It  was  a  boat,  sure  enough  ;  but  not 
a  boat  in  which  a  very  timid  or  even  moderately  cautious 
man  would  care  to  risk  his  life  in  more  than  five  feet  of 
water  beyond  swimming  distance  from  the  shore.  It  had 
all  the  essentials,  but  it  lacked  a  great  many  accidentals. 
Among  them,  for  instance,  a  compass.  A  compass  is  not 
an  essential  of  a  boat,  but  it  is  an  essential  of  satisfactory 
navigation.  So  security  is  not  an  essential  of  money,  but 
it  is  an  essential  of  steady  production  and  stable  commerce. 
A  boat  without  a  compass  is  almost  sure  to  strike  upon 
the  rocks.  Likewise  money  without  security  is  almost  sure 
to  precipitate  the  people  using  it  into  general  bankruptcy. 
When  products  can  be  had  for  the  writing  of  promises  and  the 
idea  gets  abroad  that  such  promises  are  good  money  whether 
kept  or  not,  the  promisors  are  very  likely  to  stop  producing  ; 
and,  if  the  process  goes  on  long  enough,  it  will  be  found  at  the 
end  that  there  are  plenty  of  promises  with  which  to  buy,  but 
that  there  is  nothing -left  to  be  bought,  and  that  it  will  require 
an  infinite  number  of  promises  to  buy  an  infinitesimal  amount 
of  nothing.  If,  however,  people  find  that  their  promises  will 
not  be  accepted  unless  accompanied  by  evidence  of  an  inten- 
tion and  ability  to  keep  them,  and  if  this  evidence  is  kept 
definitely  before  all  through  some  system  of  organized  credit, 
the  promisors  will  actively  bestir  themselves  to  create  the 
means  of  keeping  their  promises;  and  the  free  circulation  of 
these  promises,  far  from  checking  production,  will  vastly  stim- 
ulate it,  the  result  being,  not  bankruptcy,  but  universal  wealth. 


278 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


A  money  thus  secured  is  fit  for  civilized  people.  Any  other 
money,  though  it  have  all  the  essentials,  belongs  to  barbarians, 
and  is  hardly  fit  to  buy  the  Indian's  dug-out. 


LELAND  STANFORD'S  LAND  BANK. 

[Liberty,  June  7,  1890.] 

The  introduction  in  congress  by  Leland  Stanford  of  a  bill 
proposing  to  issue  one  hundred  millions  or  more  of  United 
States  notes  to  holders  of  agricultural  land,  said  notes  to  be 
secured  by  first  mortgages  on  such  land  and  to  bear  two  per 
cent,  interest,  is  one  of  the  most  notable  events  of  this  time, 
and  its  significance  is  increased  by  the  statement  of  Stanford, 
in  his  speech  supporting  the  bill,  that  its  provisions  will 
probably  be  extended  ultimately  to  other  kinds  of  property. 
This  bill  is  pregnant  with  the  economics  (not  the  politics)  of 
Anarchism.  It  contains  the  germ  of  the  social  revolution.  It 
provides  a  system  of  governmental  mutual  banking.  If  it 
were  possible  to  honestly  and  efficiently  execute  its  provisions, 
it  would  have  only  to  be  extended  to  other  kinds  of  property 
and  to  gradually  lower  its  rate  of  interest  from  two  per  cent, 
(an  eminently  safe  figure  to  begin  with)  to  one  per  cent.,  or 
one  half  of  one  per  cent.,  or  whatever  figure  might  be  found 
sufficient  to  cover  the  cost  of  operating  the  system,  in  order 
to  steadily  and  surely  transfer  a  good  three-fourths  of  the  in- 
come of  idle  capitalists  to  the  pockets  of  the  wage-workers  of 
the  country.  The  author  of  this  bill  is  so  many  times  a  mil- 
lionaire that,  even  if  every  cent  of  his  income  were  to  be  cut 
off,  his  principal  would  still  be  sufficient  to  support  his  family 
for  generations  to  come,  but  it  is  none  the  less  true  that  he 
has  proposed  a  measure  which,  with  the  qualifications  already 
specified,  would  ultimately  make  his  descendants  either  pau- 
pers or  toilers  instead  of  gigantic  parasites  like  himself.  In 
short,  Leland  Stanford  has  indicated  the  only  blow  (consid- 
ered solely  in  its  economic  aspect)  that  can  ever  reach  capital- 
ism's heart.  From  his  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate  he 
has  told  the  people  of  this  country,  in  effect,  that  the  funda- 
mental economic  teaching  reiterated  by  Liberty  from  the  day 
of  its  first  publication  is  vitally  true  and  sound. 

Unhappily  his  bill  is  vitiated  by  the  serious  defect  of 
governmentalism.  If  it  had  simply  abolished  all  the  restric- 
tions and  taxes  on  banking,  and  had  empowered  all  indi- 


MONEY    AND  INTEREST. 


279 


viduals  and  associations  to  do  just  what  its  passage  would  em- 
power the  government  to  do,  it  would  not  only  have  been 
significant,  but,  adopted  by  congress,  it  would  have  been  the 
most  tremendously  and  beneficially  effective  legislative  mea- 
sure ever  recorded  on  a  statute  book.  But,  as  it  is,  it  is  made 
powerless  for  good  by  the  virus  of  political  corruption  that 
lurks  within  it.  The  bill,  if  passed,  would  be  entrusted  for 
execution  either  to  the  existing  financial  cabal  or  to  some 
other  that  would  become  just  as  bad.  All  the  beneficent 
results  that,  as  an  economic  measure,  it  is  calculated  to 
achieve  would  be  nearly  counteracted,  perhaps  far  more  than 
counteracted,  by  the  cumulative  evils  inherent  in  State  ad- 
ministration. It  deprives  itself,  in  advance,  of  the  vitalizing 
power  of  free  competition.  If  the  experiment  should  be  tried, 
the  net  result  would  probably  be  evil.  It  would  fail,  disas- 
trously fail,  and  the  failure  and  disaster  would  be  falsely  and 
stupidly  attributed  to  its  real  virtue,  its  economic  character.  For 
perhaps  another  century  free  banking  would  have  to  bear  the 
odium  of  the  evils  generated  by  a  form  of  governmental  bank- 
ing more  or  less  similar  to  it  economically.  Some  bad  name 
would  be  affixed  to  the  Stanford  notes,  and  this  would  replace 
the  assignal,  the  "  wild  cat,"  and  the  "  rag  baby,"  as  a  more 
effective  scarecrow.  It  would  unendurably  prolong  the  bray 
of  those  financial  asses  of  whom  the  most  recent  typical 
example  is  furnished  in  the  person  of  General  M.  M.  Trumbull, 
of  Chicago.* 

While  hoping,  then,  that  it  may  never  pass,  let  us  never- 
theless make  the  most  of  its  introduction  by  using  it  as  a  text 
in  our  educational  work.  This  may  be  done  in  one  way  by 
showing  its  economic  similarity  to  Anarchistic  finance  and  by 
disputing  the  astounding  claim  of  originality  put  forward  by 
Stanford.  In  his  Senate  speech  of  May  23,  he  said  :  "  There 
is  no  analogy  between  this  scheme  for  a  government  of 
65,000,000  people,  with  its  boundless  resources,  issuing  its 
money,  secured  directly  by  at  least  $2  for  $1,  on  the  best  pos- 


*  At  the  time  when  this  was  written  General  Trumbull  had  just  been 
guilty,  and  not  for  the  first  time,  of  stupidly  confusing  mutual  money  with 
fiat  money,  and  as  his  ignorance  of  the  difference  between  them  was  ut- 
terly without  excuse  and  yet  was  given  voice  in  that  tone  of  superiority 
which  ignorance  is  wont  to  assume,  it.  seemed  proper  to  administer  this 
rebuke,  which,  though  conceded  to  be  just  by  some  of  General  Trumbull's 
best  friends,  was  considered  by  others  unduly  severe.  The  writer  is  not 
behind  these  last  in  his  admiration  of  General  Trumbull  as  a  man  and  a 
thinker.  As  a  publicist  he  is  usually  and  unusually  witty  and  wise;  only 
when  discussing  finance  does  he  utter  absurdities  that  justify  the  epithet 
above  applied. 


280 


INSTEAD   OF    A  HOOK. 


sible  security  that  could  be  desired,  and  any  other  financial 
proposition  that  has  ever  been  suggested."  If  Stanford  said 
this  honestly,  his  words  show  him  to  be  both  an  intellectual 
pioneer  and  a  literary  laggard.  More  familiarity  with  the 
literature  of  the  subject  would  show  him  that  he  has  had 
several  predecessors  in  this  path.  Col.  William  B.  Greene 
used  to  say  of  Lysander  Spooner's  financial  proposals  that 
their  only  originality  lay  in  the  fact  that  he  had  taken  out  a 
patent  on  them.  The  only  originality  of  Stanford's  lies  in 
the  fact  that  it  is  made  for  a  government  of  65,000,000  of 
people.  For  governments  of  other  sizes  the  same  proposal 
has  been  made  before.  Parallel  to  it  in  all  essentials,  both 
economically  and  politically,  are  Proudhon's  Bank  of  Ex- 
change and  the  proposal  of  Hugo  Bilgram.  Parallel  to  it 
economically  are  Proudhon's  Bank  of  the  People,  Greene's 
Mutual  Banks,  and  Spooner's  real  estate  mortgage  banks. 
And  the  financial  thought  that  underlies  it  is  closely  paralleled 
in  the"  writings  of  Josiah  Warren,  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews,  and 
John  Ruskin.  If  Stanford  will  sit  at  the  feet  of  any  of  these 
men  for  a  time,  he  will  rise  a  wiser  and  more  modest  man. 

Like  most  serious  matters,  this  affair  has  its  amusing  side. 
It  is  seen  in  the  idolization  of  Stanford  by  the  Greenbackers. 
This  shows  how  ignorant  these  men  are  of  their  own  principles. 
Misled  by  the  resemblance  of  the  proposed  measure  to  Green- 
backism  in  some  incidental  respects,  they  hurrah  themselves 
hoarse  over  the  California  senator,  blissfully  unaware  that  his 
bill  is  utterly  subversive  of  the  sole  essential  of  Greenbackism, 
• — namely,  the  fiat  idea.  The  Greenbacker  is  distinguished 
from  all  other  men  in  this  and  only  in  this, — that  in  his  eyes  a 
dollar  is  a  dollar  because  the  government  stamps  it  as  such. 
Now  in  Stanford's  eyes  a  dollar  is  a  dollar  because  it  is  based 
upon  and  secured  by  a  specific  piece  of  property  that  will  sell 
in  the  market  for  at  least  a  certain  number  of  grains  of  gold. 
Two  views  more  antagonistic  than  these  it  would  be  impos- 
sible to  cite.  And  yet  the  leading  organs  of  Greenbackism 
apparently  regard  them  as  identical. 


MONEY  AND  INTEREST. 


28l 


MUTUALISM  IN  THE  SERVICE  OF  CAPITAL. 

[Liberty,  July  16,  1887  ] 

In  a  long  reply  to  Edward  Atkinson's  recent  address  before 
the  Boston  Labor  Lyceum,  Henry  George's  Standard  impairs 
the  effect  of  much  sound  and  effective  criticism  by  the  follow- 
ing careless  statement : 

Mr.  Atkinson  does  not  even  know  the  nature  of  his  own  business. 
He  told  his  audience  that  his  "regular  work  is  to  stop  the  cotton  and 
woollen  mills  from  being  burned  up."  This  is  a  grave  blunder.  Fire  in- 
surance companies  are  engaged  in  distributing  losses  by  fire  among  the 
insured.  As  a  statistician  he  knows  that  statistics  show  that  in  New 
Hampshire,  when  that  State  was  boycotted  by  the  insurance  companies, 
the  number  of  fires  was  reduced  by  thirty  per  cent.  He  does  not  save 
buildings  from  fire. 

This  is  a  gross  slander  of  one  of  the  most  admirable  institu- 
tions in  America, — none  the  less  admirable  in  essence  because 
it  happens  in  this  instance  to  exist  for  the  benefit  of  the  cap- 
italists. Mr.  George  unwarrantably  assumes  that  Mr.  Atkinson 
is  engaged  in  an  insurance  business  of  the  every-day  sort.  This 
is  far  from  true.  He  is  the  president  of  an  insurance  com- 
pany doing  business  on  a  principle  which,  if  it  should  be 
adopted  in  the  banking  business,  would  do  more  to  abolish 
poverty  than  all  the  nostrums  imagined  or  imaginable,  includ- 
ing the  taxation  of  land  values.  This  principle  is  the  mutu- 
alistic,  or  cost,  principle. 

Some  time  ago  a  number  of  mill-owners  decided  that  they 
would  pay  no  more  profits  to  insurance  companies,  inasmuch 
as  they  could  insure  themselves  much  more  advantageously. 
So  they  formed  a  company  of  their  own,  into  the  treasury  of 
vhich  each  mill  pays  annually  a  sum  proportional  to  the 
1  mount  for  which  it  wishes  to  insure,  receiving  it  back  at  the 
end  of  the  year  minus  its  proportion  of  the  year's  losses  by 
lire  paid  by  the  company  and  of  the  cost  of  maintaining  the 
company.  It  is  obvious  that  by  the  adoption  of  this  plan  the 
mills  would  have  saved  largely,  even  if  fires  had  continued  to 
occur  in  them  as  frequently  as  before.  But  this  is  not  all.  By 
mutual  agreement  the  mills  place  themselves,  so  far  as  protec- 
tion against  fire  is  concerned,  under  the  supervision  of  the  in- 
surance company,  which  keeps  inspectors  to  see  that  each  mill 
avails  itself  of  all  the  best  means  of  preventing  and  extin- 
guishing fire,  and  uses  the  utmost  care  in  the  matter.  As  a 
consequence  the  number  of  fires  and  the  aggregate  damage 


282 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


caused  thereby  has  been  reduced  in  a  degree  that  would 
scarcely  be  credited  ;  the  cost  of  insurance  to  these  mills  is 
now  next  to  nothing,  and  this  cost  might  be  reduced  still  fur- 
ther by  cutting  down  an  enormous  salary  paid  to  Mr.  Atkin- 
son for  services  which  not  a  few  persons  more  industrious  and 
capable  than  he  are  ready  to  perform  for  less  money.  Mr.  At- 
kinson's insurance  company,  then,  does  save  buildings  from 
fire,  and  Mr.  George's  statement  that  it  does  not  is  as  reckless 
as  anything  that  Mr.  Atkinson  ever  said  to  prove  that  the 
laboring  man  is  an  inhabitant  of  Paradise. 

Moreover,  it  is  the  height  of  stupidity  for  any  champion  of 
labor  to  slur  this  insurance  company,  for  it  contains  in  germ 
the  solution  of  the  labor  question.  When  workingmen  and 
business  men  shall  be  allowed  to  organize  their  credit  as  these 
mill-owners  have  organized  their  insurance,  the  former  will 
pay  no  more  tribute  to  the  credit-monger  than  the  latter  pay 
to  the  insurance-monger,  and  the  one  class  will  be  as  safe  from 
bankruptcy  as  the  other  is  from  fire.  Yet  Mr.  Atkinson,  whose 
daily  life  should  keep  this  truth  perpetually  before  his  mind, 
pretends  that  the  laborer  can  achieve  the  social  revolution  by 
living  on  beef -bones  and  using  water-gas  as  fuel.  Can  any  one 
think  him  sincere  ? 


EDWARD  ATKINSON'S  EVOLUTION. 

[Liberty,  January  10,  1891.] 

The  great  central  principle  of  Anarchistic  economics — 
namely,  the  dethronement  of  gold  and  silver  from  their  posi- 
tion of  command  over  all  other  wealth  by  the  destruction  of 
their  monopoly  currency  privilege — is  rapidly  forging  to  the 
front.  The  Farmers'  Alliance  sub-treasury  scheme,  unscien- 
tific and  clumsy  as  it  is,  is  a  glance  in  this  direction.  The  im- 
portance of  Senator  Stanford's  land  bill,  more  scientific  and , 
workable,  but  incomplete,  and  vicious  because  governmental, 
has  already  been  emphasized  in  these  columns.  But  most 
notable  of  all  is  the  recent  revolution  in  the  financial  attitude 
of  Edward  Atkinson,  the  most  orthodox  and  cock-sure  of 
American  economists,  who  now  swells  with  his  voice  the  grow- 
ing demand  for  a  direct  representation  of  all  wealth  in  the 
currency. 

In  a  series  of  articles  in  Bradstreet's  and  in  an  address  be- 
fore the  Boston  Boot  and  Shoe  Club,  this  old-time  foe  of  all 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


paper  money  not  based  on  specie  ;  this  man  who,  fifteen  or 
twenty  years  ago,  stood  up  in  the  town  hall  of  Brookline  in  a 
set  debate  with  Col.  Wm.  B.  Greene  to  combat  the  central 
principle  of  Mutual  Banking  ;  this  boor,  who  has  never  lost  an 
opportunity  of  insulting  Anarchism  and  Anarchists, — now 
comes  forward  to  save  the  country  with  an  elaborate  financial 
scheme  which  he  offers  as  original  with  himself,  but  which  has 
really  been  Anarchistic  thunder  these  many  years,  was  first  put 
forward  in  essence  by  Proudhon,  the  father  of  Anarchism,  and 
was  championed  by  Atkinson's  old  antagonist,  Col.  Wm.  B. 
Greene,  to  the  end  of  his  life.  Of  course,  all  the  papers  are 
talking  about  it,  and,  on  the  principle  that  "  everything  goes" 
that  comes  from  the  great  Atkinson,  most  of  them  give  it  a 
warm  welcome,  though  precious  few  of  them  understand  what 
it  means.  Those  which  probably  do  understand,  like  the  New 
York  Evening  Post,  content  themselves  for  the  present  with  a 
mild  protest,  reserving  their  heavier  fire  to  be  used  in  case 
the  plan  should  seem  likely  to  gain  acceptance. 

The  proposal  is  briefly  this  :  that  the  national  banks  of  the 
country  shall  be  divided  into  several  districts,  each  district 
having  a  certain  city  as  a  banking  centre  ;  that  any  bank  may 
deposit  with  the  clearing-house  securities  satisfactory  to  the 
clearing-house  committee,  and  receive  from  the  clearing-house 
certificates  in  the  form  of  bank-notes  of  small  denominations, 
to  the  extent  of  seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  secu- 
rities ;  that  these  notes  shall  bear  the  bank's  promise  to  pay 
on  the  back,  and  shall  be  redeemable  on  demand  at  the  bank 
in  legal-tender  money,  and,  in  case  of  failure  on  the  bank's 
part  to  so  redeem  them,  they  shall  be  redeemable  at  the  clear- 
ing-house ;  and  that  this  new  circulating  medium  shall  be  ex- 
empt from  the  ten  per  cent,  tax  imposed  upon  State  bank 
circulation. 

Of  course  a  scheme  like  this  would  not  work  the  economic 
revolution  which  Anarchism  expects  from  free  banking.  It 
does  not  destroy  the  monopoly  of  the  right  to  bank  ;  it  retains 
the  control  of  the  currency  in  the  hands  of  a  cabal  ;  it  under- 
takes the  redemption  of  the  currency  in  legal-tender  money, 
regardless  of  the  fact  that,  if  any  large  proportion  of  the 
country's  wealth  should  become  directly  represented  in  the 
currency,  there  would  not  be  sufficient  legal-tender  money  to  re- 
deem it.  It  is  dangerous  in  its  feature  of  centralizing  responsi- 
bility instead  of  localizing  it,  and  it  is  defective  in  less  impor- 
tant respects.  I  call  attention  to  it  and  welcome  it,  because 
here  for  the  first  time  Pioudhon's  doctrine  of  the  republican- 
ization  of  specie  is  soberly  championed  by  a  recognized  econo. 


< 


284 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


mist.  This  fact  alone  makes  it  an  important  sign  of  the 
times. 

I  am  surprised  that  its  importance  has  not  been  fully  appre- 
ciated by  the  Galveston  News,  which  journal  alone  among  the 
great  dailies  of  the  country  is  an  exponent  of  rational  finance. 
Its  editor,  in  noticing  Atkinson's  scheme,  instead  of  pointing 
out  its  introduction  of  a  revolutionary  principle,  remarks  that 
"  the  one  infallible  way  to  reach  the  ideal  of  a  sound  system 
of  organized  credit  is  to  reach  the  ideal  of  a  population  cor- 
respondingly sound  in  character  and  intellect."  This  philis- 
tine  utterance  I  hardly  expected  from  such  a  quarter.  It  is 
undoubtedly  true  that  a  considerable  degree  of  character  and 
intellect  is  necessary  to  the  successful  organization  of  credit. 
But  this  truth  is  now  a  truism.  There  is  another  truth,  not  a 
truism,  for  the  inculcation  of  which  there  is  pressing  need, — 
that  credit,  once  organized,  will  do  as  much  to  develop  charac- 
ter and  intellect  as  the  development  of  character  and  intellect 
ever  did  to  organize  credit.  It  was  this  truth,  and  the  impor- 
tant bearing  that  the  monetization  of  all  wealth  would  have 
upon  it,  that  I  expected  to  see  emphasized  by  the  Galveston 
News  in  its  comments  upon  Atkinson's  proposal.  I  hoped 
and  still  hope,  to  hear  it  rejoice  with  Liberty  that  the  man 
whose  solutions  of  the  labor  problem  have  consisted  mainly 
of  nine-dollar  suits  and  ten-cent  meals  and  patent  ovens  has 
at  last  broached  a  measure  that,  instead  of  being  beneath  con- 
tempt, is  worthy  of  profound  consideration. 


A  GREENB ACKER  IN  A  CORNER. 

[Liberty,  August  9,  1884.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

In  Liberty  of  June  28  you  refer  to  a  writer  in  the  Essex  Statesman,  of 
whom  you  say  that  he  "gets  down  to  bottom  truth  "  on  the  tariff  ques- 
tion by  averring  that  "  Free  Money  "  and  "  Free  Trade  r  are  corollaries 
of  each  other. 

Every  Greenbacker  (I  am  one)  of  brains  perceived  this  simple  (I  might 
sav  axiomatic)  doctrine  the  moment  he  thought  at  all  on  it. 

Monopoly  of  money  is  through  interest  ;  monopoly  of  trade  is  through 
taxing  (tariffs)  :  so,  if  you  would  overthrow  all  monopoly,  you  have  only 
to  secure  currency  unloaded  with  interest,  and  their  doom  is  recorded. 

There  is  no  more  rational  reformer  in  existence  than  the  "Green- 
backer  "  who  is  a  Greenbacker  in  the  only  rational  sense  of  the  word, — 
that  is,  a  believer  in  "a  non-interest-bearing  currency." 

It  is  amusing,  this  prating  of  "  secured  money  "  !    Liberty  ought  to  see 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


that  a  currency  "  based  "  on  any  "  security  "  other  than  its  inherent  func- 
tion and  non-discountableness  would  rob  those  who  used  it. 

If  the  whole  community  co-operate  in  its  issue  and  use,  and  "fix"  no 
limit  to  its  quantity  or  use,  such  currency  would  be  perfect  as  to  all 
qualities,  and  rob  none;  and  such  money  is  "full  legal  tender"  under 
any  name  you  choose  to  label  it. 

As  I  have  taught  this  doctrine  for  more  than  ten  years,  I  hope  you  will 
give  a  corner  to  this  brief  "  brick  "  in  Liberty. 

E.  H.  Benton. 

Wells  Mills  (Geere),  Neb.,  July,  1884. 

I  have  given  Mr.  Benton  his  "corner,"  and  I  think  he  will 
have  difficulty  in  getting  out  of  it.  Let  me  suppose  a  case 
for  him.  A  is  a  farmer,  and  owns  a  farm  worth  five  thousand 
dollars.  B  keeps  a  bank  of  issue,  and  is  known  far  and  wide 
as,  a  cautious  and  honest  business  man.  C,  D,  E,  etc.,  down 
to  Z  are  each  engaged  in  some  one  of  the  various  pursuits  of 
civilized  life.  A  needs  ready  money.  He  mortgages  his  farm 
to  B,  and  receives  in  return  B's  notes,  in  various  denomina- 
tions, to  the  amount  of  five  thousand  dollars,  for  which  B 
charges  A  this  transaction's  just  proportion  of  the  expenses  of 
running  the  bank,  which  would  be  a  little  less  than  one-half 
of  one  per  cent.  With  these  notes  A  buys  various  products 
which  he  needs  of  C,  D,  E,  etc.,  down  to  Z,  who  in  turn  with 
the  same  notes  buy  products  of  each  other,  and  in  course  of 
time  come  back  to  A  with  them  to  buy  his  farm  produce.  A, 
thus  regaining  possession  of  B's  notes,  returns  them  to  B,  who 
then  cancels  his  mortgage  on  A's  farm.  All  these  parties, 
from  A  to  Z,  have  been  using  for  the  performance  of  innumer- 
able transactions  B's  notes  based  on  A's  farm, — that  is,  a  cur- 
rency based  on  some  security  "  other  than  its  inherent  func- 
tion and  non-discountableness."  They  were  able  to  perform 
them  only  because  they  all  knew  that  the  notes  were  thus 
secured.  A  knew  it  because  he  gave  the  mortgage  ;  B  knew 
it  because  he  took  the  mortgage  ;  C,  D,  E,  etc.,  down  to  Z 
knew  it  because  they  knew  that  B  never  issued  notes  unless 
they  were  secured  in  this  or  some  similar  way.  Now,  Liberty 
is  ready  to  see,  as  Mr.  Benton  says  it  ought  to  see,  that  any  or 
all  of  these  parties  have  been  robbed  by  the  use  of  this  money 
when  Mr.  Benton  shall  demonstrate  it  by  valid  fact  and  argu- 
ment.   Until  then  he  must  stay  in  his  corner. 

A  word  as  to  the  phrase  "legal  tender."  That  only  is  legal 
tender  which  the  government  prescribes  as  valid  for  the  dis- 
charge of  debt.  Any  currency  not  so  prescribed  is  not  legal 
tender,  no  matter  how  universal  its  use  or  how  unlimited  its 
issue,  and  to  label  it  so  is  a  confusion  of  terms. 

Another  word  as  to  the  term  "  Greenbacker."    He  is  a 


286 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


Greenbacker  who  subscribes  to  the  platform  of  the  Greenback 
party.  The  cardinal  principle  of  that  platform  is  that  the 
government  shall  monopolize  the  manufacture  of  money,  and 
that  any  one  who,  in  rebellion  against  that  sacred  prerogative, 
may  presume  to  issue  currency  on  his  own  account  shall 
therefor  be  taxed,  or  fined,  or  imprisoned,  or  hanged,  or  drawn 
and  quartered,  or  submitted  to  any  other  punishment  or  tort- 
ure which  the  government,  in  pursuit  and  exercise  of  its  good 
pleasure,  may  see  fit  to  impose  upon  him.  Unless  Mr.  Benton 
believes  in  that,  he  is  not  a  Greenbacker,  and  I  am  sure  I  am 
not,  although,  with  Mr.  Benton,  I  believe  in  a  non-interest- 
bearing  currency. 


FREE  MONEY  AND  THE  COST  PRINCIPLE. 

[Liberty,  December  i,  1888.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

I  understand  that  the  monopoly  of  money  should  be  broken,  and  this 
would  leave  all  persons  who  possessed  property  free  to  issue  solvent  notes 
thereon,  the  competition  between  them  so  reducing  the  rate  of  interest 
that  it  would  enable  would-be  business  people  to  borrow  on  advantageous 
terms.  Now,  to  my  mind  this  would  do  no  good  unless  the  new  order  of 
benefited  business  persons  adopted  the  "  Cost  principle  "  in  production 
and  distribution,  in  order  to  break  down  the  present  bad  arrangements  in 
society  that  is  composed  of  workers  on  one  side  and  idlers  and  unproduc- 
tive or  useless  persons  on  the  other  side. 

If  the  cost  principle  was  not  in  view,  the  result  to  my  mind  of  "  plentiful 
money  "  would  only  lead  to  a  short  briskness  of  trade  and  a  speedy  break- 
down,— much  speedier  than  now. 

Neither  do  I  think  (in  the  absence  of  applying  the  cost  principle)  that 
competition  among  bankers  would  bring  the  issue  down  to  cost  through 
the  sheer  force  of  competition,  because  people  would  cease  to  go  into  the 
banking  business  if  it  did  not  yield  the  normal  rate  of  interest  on  capital. 

In  conclusion,  I  must  say  I  believe  in  the  "  Cost  principle,"  and  yet  as 
an  Anarchist  there  seems  something  arbitrary  in  it.  It  is  the  reconcilia- 
tion of  "Cost"  and  competition  that  my  mind  cannot  yet  grasp. 

Yours  faithfully,  Frank  A.  Matthews. 

The  Cost  principle  cannot  fail  to  seem  arbitrary  to  one  who 
does  not  see  that  it  can  only  be  realized  through  economic 
processes  that  go  into  operation  the  moment  liberty  is  allowed 
in  finance.  To  see  this  it  is  necessary  to  understand  the 
principles  of  mutual  banking,  which  Mr.  Matthews  has  not 
attentively  studied.  If  he  had,  he  would  know  that  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  mutual  bank  does  not  require  the  investment  of 
capital,  inasmuch  as  the  customers  of  the  bank  furnish  all  the 


MONEY  AND  INTEREST. 


287 


capital  upon  which  the  bank's  notes  are  based,  and  that  there- 
fore the  rate  of  discount  charged  by  the  bank  for  the  service 
of  exchanging  its  notes  for  those  of  its  customers  is  governed, 
under  competition,  by  the  cost  of  that  service,  and  not  by  the 
rate  of  interest  that  capital  commands.  The  relation  is  just 
the  contrary  of  Mr.  Matthews's  supposition.  It  is  the  rate  of 
interest  on  capital  that  is  governed  by  the  bank's  rate  of  dis- 
count, for  capitalists  will  not  be  able  to  lend  their  capital  at 
interest  when  people  can  get  money  at  the  bank  without 
interest  with  which  to  buy  capital  outright.  It  is  this  effect 
of  free  and  mutual  banking  upon  the  rate  of  interest  on 
capital  that  insures,  or  rather  constitutes,  the  realization  of 
the  Cost  principle  by  economic  processes.  For  the  moment 
interest  and  rent  are  eliminated  as  elements  of  price,  and  brisk 
competition  is  assured  by  the  ease  of  getting  capital,  profits 
fall  to  the  level  of  the  manufacturer's  or  merchant's  proper 
wage.  It  is  well,  as  Mr.  Matthews  says,  to  have  the  Cost 
principle  in  view  ;  for  it  is  doubtless  true  that  the  ease  with 
which  society  travels  the  path  of  progress  is  largely  governed 
by  the  clearness  with  which  it  foresees  it.  But,  foresight  or 
no  foresight,  it  "  gets  there  just  the  same."  The  only  fore- 
sight absolutely  necessary  to  progress  is  foresight  of  the  fact 
that  liberty  is  its  single  essential  condition. 


PROUDHON'S  BANK. 

{Liberty,  September  20,  1884.] 

While  the  principle  of  equal  representation  of  all  available  values  by  the 
notes  of  the  Exchange  Bank  is  what  I  have  advocated  these  thirty  years,  I 
do  not  perceive  how,  in  generalizing  the  system,  as  Proudhon  would  do 
(I  refer  to  the  paragraphs  translated  by  Greene),  we  are  to  avoid  the 
chances  of  forgery  on  the  one  side,  and  on  the  other  of  fraudulent  issues 
by  the  officers  of  the  Bank. 

Such  a  Bank,  moreover,  is  equivalent  to  a  general  insurance  policy  on 
the  property  of  a  country,  and  the  true  value  of  its  notes  must  depend  on 
security  against  conflagrations  and  other  catastrophes  affecting  real  estate 
as  well  as  "  personal  property." 

I  hope  that  the  first  essays  will  be  local  and  limited.  I  think  the 
commercial  activity  of  modern  civilization  dangerously,  if  not  fatally, 
exaggerated  and  disproportioned  to  production.  The  Railroad  is  a  re- 
volver in  the  hands  of  a  maniac,  who  has  just  about  sense  enough  to  shoot 
himself.  Even  were  we  not,  in  our  blind  passion  for  rapid  and  facile 
transportation,  hanging  ourselves  by  the  slip-noose  of  monopoly,  the  im- 
pulse which  railroads  give  to  and  towards  city  life,  coming,  as  it  has, 
before  the  establishment  of  a  conservative  scavenger  system,  by  which  the 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


cream  of  soils  would  be  restored  to  them,  rapidly  drains  and  wastes  terra- 
solar  vitality,  and  suffices  soon  to  render  America  a  desert.  The  feasible 
check  to  this  "  galloping  consumption  "  lies  in  localizing  the  circuits  of  pro- 
duction with  manipulation  and  consumption  in  cooperative  associations. 
The  smaller  the  area  in  which  such  self-sufficing  circuit  is  effected,  the 
greater  the  economy  of  force  in  transportation. 

Men  and  Gods  are  too  extense  ; 
Could  you  slacken  and  condense  ? 

I  suppose  you  see  the  correlation  of  this  idea  with  that  of  the  safety  of 
Exchange  Bank  notes,  as  in  a  locally  restricted  commerce  frauds  could 
and  would  be  promptly  detected,  and  therefore  would  be  seldom  attempted. 

Edgeworth. 

Proudhon  was  accustomed  to  present  his  views  of  the  way 
in  which  credit  may  be  organized  in  two  forms, — his  Bank  of 
Exchange  and  his  Bank  of  the  People.  The  latter  was  his 
real  ideal  ;  the  former  he  advocated  whenever  he  wished  to 
avoid  the  necessity  of  combating  the  objections  of  the  govern- 
mentalists.  The  Bank  of  Exchange  was  to  be  simply  the 
Bank  of  France  transformed  on  the  mutual  principle.  It  is 
easy  to  see  that  the  precautions  against  forgery  and  over- 
issue now  used  by  the  Bank  of  France  would  be  equally  valid 
after  the  transformation.  But  in  the  case  of  the  Bank  of  the 
People,  which  involves  the  introduction  of  free  competition 
into  the  banking  business,  these  evils  will  have  to  be  other- 
wise guarded  against.  The  various  ways  of  doing  this  are 
secondary  considerations,  having  nothing  to  do  with  the  prin- 
ciples of  finance  ;  and  human  ingenuity,  which  has  heretofore 
conquered  much  greater  obstacles,  will  undoubtedly  prove 
equal  to  the  emergency.  The  more  reputable  banks  would 
soon  become  distinguished  from  the  others  by  some  sort  of 
voluntary  organization  and  mutual  inspection  necessary  to 
their  own  protection.  The  credit  of  all  such  as  declined  to 
submit  to  thorough  examination  by  experts  at  any  moment  or 
to  keep  their  books  open  for  public  inspection  would  be 
ruined,  and  these  would  receive  no  patronage.  Probably  also 
the  better  banks  would  combine  in  the  use  of  a  uniform  bank- 
note paper  difficult  to  counterfeit,  which  would  be  guarded 
most  carefully  and  distributed  to  the  various  banks  only  so 
far  as  they  could  furnish  security  for  it.  In  fact,  any  number 
of  checks  can  be  devised  by  experts  that  would  secure  the 
currency  against  all  attempts  at  adulteration.  There  is  little 
doubt  that  the  first  essays  will  be,  as  "  Edgeworth  "  hopes, 
"  local  and  limited."  But  I  do  not  think  the  money  so  pro- 
duced will  be  nearly  as  safe  as  that  which  will  result  when 
the  system  has  become  widespread  and  its  various  branches 
organized  in  such  a  way  that  the  best  means  of  protection 
may  be  utilized  at  small  expense. 


MONEY   AND   INTEREST.  289 


WHY  WAGES  SHOULD  ABSORB  PROFITS. 

{Liberty,  July  16,  1887.] 

Van  Buren  Denslow,  discussing  in  the  Truth  Seeker  the 
comparative  rewards  of  labor  and  capital,  points  out  that  the 
present  wage  system  divides  profits  almost  evenly  between 
the  two,  instancing  the  railways  of  Illinois,  which  pay  annually 
in  salaries  and  wages  $81,936,170,  and  to  capital,  which  Mr. 
Denslow  defines  as  the  "labor  previously  done  in  constructing 
and  equipping  the  roads,"  $81,720,265.  Then  he  remarks  : 
"  No  system  of  intentional  profit-sharing  is  more  equal  than 
this,  provided  we  assent  to  the  principle  that  a  day's  work 
already  done  and  embodied  in  the  form  of  capital  is  as  well 
entitled  to  compensation  for  its  use  as  a  day's  work  not  yet 
done,  which  we  call  labor."  Exactly.  But  the  principle 
referred  to  is  the  very  thing  which  we  Socialists  deny,  and 
until  Mr.  Denslow  can  meet  and  vanquish  us  on  that  point,  he 
will  in  vain  attempt  to  defend  the  existing  or  any  other  form 
of  profit-sharing.  The  Socialists  assert  that  "  a  day's  work 
embodied  in  the  form  of  capital  "  has  already  been  fully 
rewarded  by  the  ownership  of  that  capital  ;  that,  if  the  owner 
lends  it  to  another  to  use  and  the  user  damages  it,  destroys  it, 
or  consumes  any  part  of  it,  the  owner  is  entitled  to  have  this 
damage,  destruction,  or  consumption  made  good  ;  and  that,  if 
the  owner  receives  from  the  user  any  surplus  beyond  the 
return  of  his  capital  intact,  his  day's  work  is  paid  for  a  second 
time. 

Perhaps  Mr.  Denslow  will  tell  us,  as  we  have  so  often  been 
told  before,  that  this  day's  work  should  be  paid  for  a  second' 
and  a  third  and  a  hundredth  and  a  millionth  time,  because 
the  capital  which  it  produced  and  in  which  it  is  embodied 
increased  the  productivity  of  future  labor.  The  fact  that  it 
did  cause  such  an  increase  we  grant;  but  that  labor,  where 
there  is  freedom,  is  or  should  be  paid  in  proportion  to  its  use- 
fulness we  deny.  All  useful  qualities  exist  in  nature,  either 
actively  or  potentially,  and  their  benefits,  under  freedom,  are 
distributed  by  the  natural  law  of  free  exchange  among  man- 
kind. The  laborer  who  brings  any  particular  useful  quality 
into  action  is  paid  according  to  the  labor  he  has  expended,  but 
gets  only  his  share,  in  common  with  all  mankind,  of  the  special 
usefulness  of  this  product.  It  is  true  that  the  usefulness  of  his 
product  has  a  tendency  to  enhance  its  price;  but  this  tendency- 
is  immediately  offset,  wherever  competition  is  possible, — and 


290 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


as  long  as  there  is  a  money  monopoly  there  is  no  freedom  of 
competition  in  any  industry  requiring  capital, — by  the  rush  of 
other  laborers  to  create  this  product,  which  lasts  until  the  price 
falls  back  to  the  normal  wages  of  labor.  Hence  it  is  evident 
that  the  owner  of  the  capital  embodying  the  day's  work  above 
referred  to  cannot  get  his  work  paid  for  even  a  second  time  by 
selling  his  capital.  Why,  then,  should  he  be  able  to  get  it  paid 
for  a  second  time  and  an  infinite  number  of  times  by  re- 
peatedly lending  his  capital  ?  Unless  Mr.  Denslow  can  give 
us  some  reason,  he  will  have  to  admit  that  all  profit-sharing  is 
a  humbug,  and  that  the  entire  net  product  of  industry  should 
fall  into  the  hands  of  labor  not  previously  embodied  in  the 
form  of  capital, — in  other  words,  that  wages  should  entirely 
absorb  profits. 


A  GREAT  IDEA  PERVERTED. 

[Liberty,  June  19,  1886.] 

The  Knights  of  Labor  Convention  at  Cleveland  voted  to 
petition  Congress  for  the  passage  of  an  act  which  embodies  in 
a  very  crude  way  the  all-important  principle  that  all  property 
having  due  stability  of  value  should  be  available  as  a  basis  of 
currency.  The  act  provides  for  the  establishment  of  loan 
offices  in  every  county  in  the  United  States,  which,  under  the 
administration  of  cashiers  and  tellers  appointed  by  the  Secre- 
retary  of  the  Treasury,  shall  issue  legal  tender  money,  redeem- 
able on  demand  in  gold  coin  or  its  equivalent  in  lawful  mo»ey 
of  the  United  States,  lending  it  at  three  per  cent,  a  year  to  all 
who  offer  satisfactory  security. 

The  Knights  have  got  hold  of  a  great  idea  here, — one  which 
has  in  it  more  potency  for  the  emancipation  of  labor  than  any 
other  ;  but  see  now  how  they  vitiate  it  and  render  it  impracti- 
cable and  worthless  by  their  political  and  arbitrary  methods  of 
attempting  its  realization! 

One  section  of  the  act,  by  forbidding  all  individuals  or  asso- 
ciations to  issue  money,  makes  a  government  monopoly  of  the 
banking  business, — an  outrageous  denial  of  liberty  ! 

Another  section,  instead  of  leaving  the  rate  of  discount  to 
be  governed  by  cost  to  which,  were  it  not  for  the  monopoly, 
competition  would  reduce  it,  arbitrarily  fixes  it  at  three  per 
cent.,  thus  recognizing  labor's  worst  foe,  usury.  As  three  per 
cent,  represents  the  average  annual  increase  of  wealth, — that 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


291 


is,  the  difference  between  the  annual  production  and  the 
annual  consumption, — this  section  means  that  what  ought  to 
be  labor's  annual  savings,  and  would  be  if  usury  did  not 
abstract  them  from  labor's  pockets,  shall  be  turned  into  the 
government  treasury  to  be  squandered  as  Congress  and  corrupt 
officials  may  see  fit. 

Another  section  establishes  a  uniform  usury  law  for  the 
entire  country,  providing  that  any  person  who  shall  lend  money 
at  any  other  rate  than  three  per  cent,  shall  forfeit  to  the  bor- 
rower both  principal  and  interest.  Legislators  have  heretofore 
been  satisfied  to  limit  the  rate  of  interest  in  one  direction;  but 
this  limits  it  in  both,  subjecting  the  lender  at  two  per  cent,  to 
the  same  forfeit  that  the  lender  at  four  must  suffer. 

This  piece  of  tyranny,  however,  as  well  as  numerous  others 
in  the  act,  are  thrown  entirely  into  the  shade  by  a  section 
providing  that  any  person  convicted  of  offering  for  sale  gold 
and  silver  coin  of  the  United  States  "  shall  forfeit  as  a  fine 
his  entire  estate,  goods,  money,  and  property,  or  may  be 
imprisoned  at  hard  labor  for  fifty  years,  or  suffer  both  fine  and 
imprisonment,  and  in  addition  forever  forfeit  the  right  of 
citizenship  in  the  United  States."  What  an  opportunity  for 
Recorder  Smythe,  should  this  offence  ever  come  within  his 
jurisdiction  !  His  insane  lust  for  cruelty,  which  lamented  its 
inability  to  hang  John  Most  for  making  an  incendiary  speech, 
might  find  greater  gratification  under  this  statute.  Imagine 
him  addressing  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  : 

"  John  Jones,  a  jury  of  your  peers  has  found  you  guilty  of  a 
most  heinous  crime.  You  have  presumed  to  offer  in  the 
market-place  and  subject  to  sacrilege  of  barter  our  sacred  cart- 
wheel, the  emblem  of  civilization,  the  silver  dollar  of  the 
United  States.  It  is  evident  that  you  are  a  member  of  the 
dangerous  classes.  You  are  probably  the  greatest  scoundrel 
that  ever  disgraced  the  face  of  the  earth.  It  is  a  great  pity 
that  our  too  merciful  law  will  not  permit  me  to  burn  you  at 
the  stake.  But  as  it  will  not,  I  must  be  contented,  in  the 
interest  of  law,  order,  and  society,  to  go  to  the  extreme  verge 
of  the  latitude  allowed  me.  Therefore,  I  impose  upon  you  a 
fine  equal  to  your  entire  estate,  I  sentence  you  to  imprison- 
ment at  hard  labor  for  fifty  years,  and  I  strip  you  forever  of 
the  right  to  vote  me  out  of  office."  . 

A  beautiful  organization,  these  Knights  of  Labor,  for  an 
Anarchist  to  belong  to  ! 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


ON  PICKET  DUTY.  . 

The  outcry  against  middlemen  is  senseless.  As  E.  H.  Hey- 
wood  puts  it,  "  Middlemen  are  as  important  as  end  men."  And 
they  are  as  truly  producers.  Distribution  is  a  part  of  produc- 
tion. Nothing  is  wholly  produced  until  it  is  ready  for  use, 
and  nothing  is  ready  for  use  until  it  has  reached  the  place 
where  it  is  to  be  used.  Whoever  brings  it  to  that  place  is  a 
producer,  and  as  such  entitled  to  charge  for  his  work.  The 
trouble  with  middlemen  is  that  they  charge  consumers  not 
only  for  their  work,  but  for  the  use  of  their  invested  capital. 
As  it  is,  they  are  useful  members  of  society.  Eliminate  usury 
from  their  methods,  and  they  will  become  respectable  mem- 
bers also. — Liberty,  October  i,  1881. 

Those  who  would  have  the  usurer  rewarded  for  rendering  a 
service  always  find  it  convenient  to  forget  that  the  usurer's 
victims  would  not  need  his  service  were  it  not  that  the  laws 
made  at  his  bidding  prevent  them  from  serving  themselves. — 
Liberty,  October  15,  1881. 

Of  the  absolute  correctness  of  the  principle,  and  advisability 
of  the  policy,  of  free  trade  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt; 
but  it  must  be  thorough-going  free  trade, — no  such  half-way 
arrangement  as  that  which  the  so-called  "  free  traders  "  would 
have  us  adopt.  David  A.  Wells,  Professor  Perry,  and  all  the 
economists  of  the  Manchester  school  are  fond  of  clamoring 
for  "free  trade";  but  an  examination  of  their  position  always 
shows  them  the  most  ardent  advocates  of  monopoly  in  the 
manufacture  of  money,— the  bitterest  opponents  of  free  trade 
in  credit.  They  agree  and  insist  that  it  is  nothing  less  than 
tyranny  for  the  government  to  clip  a  large  slice  out  of  the 
foreign  product  which  any  one  choses  to  import,  but  are  un- 
able to  detect  any  violation  of  freedom  in  the  exclusive  license 
given  by  the  government  to  a  conspiracy  of  note-shaving  cor- 
porations called  national  banks,  which  are  enabled  by  this 
monopoly  to  clip  anywhere  from  three  to  fifteen  per  cent,  out 
of  the  credit  which  the  people  are  compelled  to  buy  of  them. 
Such  "free  trade"  as  this  is  the  most  palpable  sham  to  any 
one  who  really  looks  into  it.  It  makes  gold  a  privileged  prod- 
uct, the  king  of  commodities.  And  as  long  as  this  royalty  of 
gold  exists,  the  protectionists  who  make  so  much  of  the  theory 


MONEY   AND  INTEREST. 


293 


of  the  " balance  of  trade"  will  occupy  an  invulnerable  position. 
While  gold  is  king,  the  nation  which  absorbs  it — that  is,  the 
nation  whose  exports  largely  exceed  its  imports — will  surely 
govern  the  world.  But  dethrone  this  worst  of  despots,  and 
that  country  will  be  the  most  powerful  which  succeeds  to  the 
largest  extent  in  getting  rid  of  its  gold  in  exchange  for  prod- 
ucts more  useful.  In  other  words,  the  republicanization  of 
specie  must  precede  the  freedom  of  trade. — Liberty,  March  18, 
1892. 

Some  nincompoop,  writing  to  the  Detroit  Spectator  in  oppo- 
sition to  cheap  money,  says  :  "  If  low  interest  insured  high 
wages,  during  times  of  business  depression  wages  would  be 
high,  for  then  interest  reaches  its  minimum."  Another  man 
unable  to  see  below  the  surface  of  things  and  distinguish  as- 
sociation from  causation  !  The  friends  of  cheap  money  do 
not  claim  that  low  interest  insures  high  wages.  What  they 
claim  is  that  free  competition  in  currency-issuing  and  the  con- 
sequent activity  of  capital  insure  both  low  interest  and  high 
wages.  They  do  not  deny  that  low  interest  sometimes  results 
from  other  causes  and  unaccompanied  by  any  increase  in 
wages.  When  the  money  monopolists  through  their  privilege 
have  bled  the  producers  nearly  all  they  can,  hard  times  set  in, 
business  becomes  very  insecure,  no  one  dares  to  venture  in 
new  directions  or  proceed  much  further  in  old  directions, 
there  is  no  demand  for  capital,  and  therefore  interest  falls  ; 
but,  there  being  a  decrease  in  the  volume  of  business,  wages 
fall  also.  Suppose,  now,  that  great  leveller,  bankruptcy,  steps 
in  to  wipe  out  all  existing  claims,  and  economic  life  begins  over 
again  under  a  system  of  free  banking.  What  happens  then  ? 
All  capital  is  at  once  made  available  by  the  abundance  of  the 
currency,  and  the  supply  is  so  great  that  interest  is  kept  very 
low  ;  but  confidence  being  restored  and  the  way  being  clear 
for  all  sorts  of  new  enterprises,  there  is  also  a  great  demand 
for  capital,  and  the  consequent  increase  in  the  volume  of 
business  causes  wages  to  rise  to  a  very  high  point.  When 
people  are  afraid  to  borrow,  interest  is  low  and  wages  are  low; 
when  people  are  anxious  to  borrow,  but  can  find  only  a  very 
little  available  capital  in  the  market,  interest  is  high  and  wages 
are  low  ;  when  people  are  both  anxious  to  borrow  and  can 
readily  do  so,  interest  is  low  and  wages  are  high,  the  only  ex- 
ception being  that,  when  from  some  special  cause  labor  is  ex- 
traordinarily productive  (as  was  the  case  in  the  early  days  of 
California),  interest  temporarily  is  high  also. — Liberty,  Novem- 
ber 22,  1884. 


294 


IX STEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


"  To  produce  wealth  in  the  shape  of  coal,"  says  Henry 
George,  "  nothing  is  needed  but  a  bed  of  coal  and  a  man." 
Yes,  one  thing  else  is  needed, — a  pick-axe.  This  neglect  of 
the  pick-axe  and  of  the  means  of  obtaining  it  is  a  vital  flaw  in 
Mr.  George's  economy.  It  leads  him  to  say  that  "what  hin-' 
ders  the  production  of  wealth  is  not  the  lack  of  money  to  pay 
wages  with,  but  the  inability  of  men  who  are  willing  to  work 
to  obtain  access  to  natural  opportunities."  That  this  lack  of 
access,  in  the  proportion  that  it  exists,  is  a  hinderance  to  pro- 
duction is  indisputable,  but  in  this  country  it  is  but  a  molehill 
in  labor's  path  compared  with  the  mountain  that  confronts 
labor  in  consequence  of  the  lack  of  money.  In  fact,  the  lack 
of  access  is  largely  due  to  the  lack  of  money.— Liberty,  July 
30,  1887. 

In  disposing  with  his  usual  cleverness  of  the  economists' 
apologies  for  interest  G.  Bernard  Shaw  takes  a  position  upon 
the  money  question  not  at  all  in  harmony  with  the  State  So- 
cialism toward  which  he  usually  inclines.  He  would  be  taken, 
in  fact,  for  a  first-class  Anarchist.  Speaking  of  the  tax  which 
the  banker  who  has  a  monopoly  levies  upon  all  commerce,  he 
says  :  "  Only  by  the  freedom  of  other  financiers  to  adopt  his 
system  and  tempt  his  customers  by  offering  to  share  the  ad- 
vantage with  them,  can  that  advantage  eventually  be  distrib- 
uted throughout  the  community."  Only,  observe.  No  other 
method  will  do  it.  Government  monopoly  will  not  do  it. 
Nothing  but  laissez-faire,  free  competition,  free  money,  in  short, 
as  far  as  it  goes,  pure  Anarchism,  can  abolish  interest  on 
money.  When  Mr.  Shaw  shall  apply  this  principle  in  all 
directions,  he  and  Liberty  will  stand  on  the  same  platform  — 
Liberty,  September  24,  1887. 

It  is  a  common  saying  of  George,  McGlynn,  Redpath,  and 
their  allies  that  they,  as  distinguished  from  the  State  Socialists, 
want  less  government  instead  of  more,  and  that  it  is  no  part 
of  the  function  of  government  to  interfere  with  production 
and  distribution  except  to  the  extent  of  assuming  control  of 
the  bounties  of  nature  and  of  such  industries  as  are  naturally 
and  necessarily  monopolies, — that  is,  such  as  are,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  beyond  the  reach  of  competition's  influence.  In  the 
latter  category  they  place  the  conduct  of  railroads  and  tele- 
graphs and  the  issue  of  money.  Now,  inasmuch  as  it  takes  an 
enormous  capital  to  build  a  railroad,  and  as  strips  of  land  three 
thousand  miles  long  by  thirty  feet  wide  are  not  to  be  picked 
up  every  day,  I  can  see  some  shadow  of  justification  for  the 


MOXEY    AM)   1  X  TERES  1  . 


295 


claim  that  railroads  are  necessarily  exempt  to  a  marked  extent 
from  competition,  although  I  do  not  think  on  that  account 
that  it  will  be  necessary  to  hand  them  over  to  the  government 
in  order  to  secure  their  benefits  for  the  people.  Still,  if  I 
were  to  accept  Mr.  George's  premise  that  industries  which  are 
necessarily  monopolies  should  be  managed  by  the  State,  I 
might  possibly  conclude  that  railroads  and  some  other  enter- 
prises belong  under  that  head.  But  how  his  premise  is  related 
to  the  issue  of  money  I  do  not  understand  at  all.  That  the 
issue  of  money  is  at  present  a  monopoly  I  admit  and  insist, 
but  it  is  such  only  because  the  State  has  laid  violent  hands 
upon  it,  either  to  hold  for  itself  or  to  farm  out  as  a  privilege. 
If  left  free,  there  is  nothing  in  its  nature  that  necessarily 
exempts  it  from  competition.  It  takes  little  or  no  capital  to 
start  a  bank  of  issue  whose  operations  may  become  world- 
wide, and,  if  a  thousand  banks  should  prove  necessary  to  the 
prevention  of  exorbitant  rates,  it  is  as  feasible  to  have  them  as 
to  have  one.  Why,  then,  is  the  issue  of  money  necessarily  a 
monopoly,  and  as  such  to  be  entrusted  exclusively  to  the 
State  ?  I  have  asked  Mr.  George  a  great  many  questions  in 
the  last  half-dozen  years,  not  one  of  which  has  he  ever  con- 
descended to  answer.  Therefore  I  scarcely  dare  hope  that  he 
will  vouchsafe  the  important  information  which  I  now  beg  of 
him. — Liberty,  October  8,  1887. 

The  different  uses  of  the  word  "  free  "  lead  to  many  misun- 
derstandings. For  instance,  a  writer  in  the  Denver  Arbitrator 
gives  the  preference  to  free  trade  and  free  land  over  free 
money  and  free  transportation  on  the  ground  that  the  former 
are  "  natural  rights  "  while  the  latter  are  u  privileges  that  can 
be  conferred  only  by  society."  Here  free  money  is  evidently 
taken  to  mean  the  supply  of  money  to  the  people  free  of  cost 
by  some  external  power.  But  it  no  more  means  that  than  free 
rum  means  the  supply  of  rum  free  of  cost.  It  means  freedom 
to  manufacture  money  and  offer  it  in  the  market,  and  is  a  part 
of  free  trade  itself.  One  may  look  upon  free  money  and  free 
trade  as  privileges,  or  as  rights,  or  as  simple  equalities  recog- 
nized by  contract ;  that  is  a  matter  of  ethics  and  politics.  But 
whichever  way  one  views  them,  he  must  view  both  alike,  for 
economically  they  are  the  same  in  principle.  There  is  no  pos- 
sible justification  for  calling  one  a  right  and  the  other  a 
privilege,  and  giving  a  preference  to  one  or  the  other  on 
the  basis  of  that  distinction. — Liberty,  September  29,  1888. 

"  A  right  theory  of  the  functions  of  money,"  writes  Robert 
Ellis  Thompson  in  the  Irish  IVor/d,  "  is  of  the  first  necessity 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


for  understanding  the  controversy  between  protection  and  free 
trade."  This  is  an  important  truth,  first  expressed,  I  think, 
by  Proudhon.  It  is  precisely  because  Mr.  Thompson  does 
not  understand  the  money  question  that  he  is  a  protectionist. 
Supposing  that  State  control  of  money  is  a  foregone  conclu- 
sion, he  sees  as  a  logical  result  of  this  false  premise  that  the 
State  must  also  control  the  balance  of  trade.  That  his  pre- 
mise may  be  doubted  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  him. 
"  The  most  extreme  free  trader,"  he  says,  "  opposes  free  trade 
in  money."  Evidently  he  is  unaware  that  the  extremity  of 
free  trade  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  New  York  Evening  Post. 
The  Anarchists  are  the  extreme  free  traders;  and  they,  to  a 
man,  favor  free  trade  in  money, — most  of  them,  in  fact,  recog- 
nizing it  as  a  necessary  condition  of  free  trade  in  products. 
For,  as  Mr.  Thompson  truly  says,  it  is  "  the  height  of  folly  for 
a  country  to  exchange  industrial  power  for  industrial  products." 
In  the  absence  of  a  tariff,  the  tendency  would  be  to  just  that 
sort  of  exchange,  provided  the  State  should  continue  to  de- 
prive all  products,  save  one  or  two,  of  the  monetary  function, 
and  therefore  of  industrial  power.  Mr.  Thompson,  suppos- 
ing this  restriction  of  the  monetary  function  to  be  necessary 
and  wise,  clings  very  sensibly  to  the  tariff.  He  would  have 
the  State  hem  in  industrial  power  and  bar  out  industrial  prod- 
ucts. Of  two  wrongs  he  tries  to  make  a  right.  The  simpler 
way,  involving  no  wrong  at  all,  is  to  give  industrial  power  to 
industrial  products  by  endowing  them  with  the  monetary 
function,  and  then  strike  down  all  commercial  barriers  what- 
soever.— Liberty,  February  2,  1889. 


LAND  AND  RENT. 


THE  LAND  FOR  THE  PEOPLE." 


[Liberty,  June  24,  1882. J 

The  Liverpool  speech,*  it  seems,  was  delivered  by  Davitt 
in  response  to  a  challenge  from  the  English  press  to  explain 
the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "the  land  for  the  people."  We 
hope  they  understand  it  now. 

"  The  land  for  the  people,"  according  to  Parnell,  appears  to 
mean  a  change  of  the  present  tenants  into  proprietors  of  the 
estates  by  allowing  them  to  purchase  on  easy  terms  fixed  by 
the  State  and  perhaps  with  the  State's  aid,  and  a  maintenance 
thereafter  of  the  present  landlord  system,  involving  the  col- 
lection of  rents  by  law. 

"  The  land  for  the  people,"  according  to  Davitt,  as  ex- 
plained at  Liverpool,  appears  to  mean  a  change  of  the  whole 
agricultural  population  into  tenants  of  the  State,  which  is  to 
become  the  sole  proprietor  by  purchase  from  the  present  pro- 
prietors, and  the  maintenance  thereafter  of  the  present  land- 
lord system  involving  the  collection  of  rents  in  the  form  of 
taxes. 

"  The  land  for  the  people,"  according  to  George,  appears  to 
be  the  same  as  according  to  Davitt,  except  that  the  State  is 
to  acquire  the  land  by  confiscation  instead  of  by  purchase, 
and  that  the  amount  of  rental  is  to  be  fixed  by  a  different 
method  of  valuation. 

"  The  land  for  the  people,"  according  to  Z/^r/y,*tneans  the 
protection  (by  the  State  while  it  exists,  and  afterwards  by 
such  voluntary  associations  for  the  maintenance  of  justice  as 
may  be  destined  to  succeed  it)  of  all  people  who  desire  to 
cultivate  land  in  the  possession  of  whatever  land  they  per- 
sonally cultivate,  without  distinction  between  the  existing 
classes  of  landlords,  tenants,  and  laborers,  and  the  positive 
refusal  of  the  protecting  power  to  lend  its  aid  to  the  collec- 
tion of  any  rent  whatsoever  ;  this  state  of  things  to  be  brought 
about  by  inducing  the  people  to  steadily  refuse  the  payment 

*  The  speech  in  which  Michael  Davitt,  in  the  summer  of  1882,  first 
publicly  endorsed  the  doctrine  of  land  nationalization. 

299 


3°° 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


of  rent  and  taxes,  and  thereby,  as  well  as  by  all  other  means 
of  passive  and  moral  resistance,  compel  the  State  to  repeal  all 
the  so-called  land  titles  now  existing. 

Thus  "  the  land  for  the  people  "  according  to  Liberty  is  the 
only  "  land  for  the  people  "  that  means  the  abolition  of  land- 
lordism and  the  annihilation  of  rent  ;  *  and  all  of  Henry 
George's  talk  about  "  peasant  proprietorship  necessarily  mean- 
ing nothing  more  than  an  extension  of  the  landlord  class  "  is 
the  veriest  rot,  which  should  be  thrown  back  upon  him  by 
the  charge  that  land  nationalization  means  nothing  more  than 
a  diminution  of  the  landlord  class  and  a  concentration  and 
hundred-fold  multiplication  of  the  landlord's  power. 


BASIC  PRINCIPLES  OF  ECONOMICS:  RENT. 

{Liberty,  October  3,  1885.] 

In  following  up  the  issues  made  by  Mr.  Tucker  in  the  August  number 
of  Liberty,  I  am  not  quixotic  enough  to  defend  Proudhon  either  against 
Mr.  T.  or  against  his  own  possible  inconsistencies.  Only  two  of  his 
works  (recommended  by  Mr.  T.)  have  been  open  to  me.  What  I  have  to 
say  stands  upon  its  own  merits,  appealing  to  reason  and  the  instinct  of 
justice. 

1.  "  The  fiction  of  the  productivity  of  capital." 

In  productivity  for  human  needs  or  desires,  human  activity  is  implied. 
No  one  pretends  that  capital  or  the  results  of  past  labor  can  in  this  point 
of  view  be  independent  of  actual  labor.  Ripe  grain  or  fruit  in  field  or 
orchard  is  a  capital ;  its  use  implies  the  labor  of  gathering  and  storing, 
milling,  cooking,  etc.  But  these  consummating  works  would  be  impos- 
sible without  the  capital  of  the  harvest,  the  result  of  previous  culture, 
which,  whether  by  the  same  or  by  different  laborers,  is  equally  an  integ- 
rant factor  in  productivity  and  justly  entitled  to  its  proportionate  share  of 
the  fruits. 

Now,  go  back  a  year  or  more.  Before  the  culture  in  question,  capital 
existed  as  the  result  of  clearing,  fencing,  ditching,  manuring,  etc. .  with- 
out which  the  culture  would  have  been  fruitless  or  impossible.  Such  pre- 
vious works,  then,  are,  equally  with  the  two  later,  integrant  of  productiv- 
ity, and  have  just  claims  to  be  satisfied  in  the  repartition  of  the  harvest. 
Previous  to  these  three  kinds  of  works,  there  has  often  been  expenditure 
of  effort  in  discovery  or  exploration,  in  conquest  of  territory,  to  which  the 
State  falls  heir,  and  on  the  strength  of  which  it  levies  tribute  under  title 
of  entry  fees  or  purchase-money. 

In  the  precited  series,  the  second  term  in  order  of  succession  has  ab- 
sorbed the  first,  so  that  the  entry  or  purchase-fee  is  added  to  the  claim 
for  preparatory  works,  whose  aggregate  constitutes  the  basis  of  rentals. 


*  Meaning  by  rent  monopolistic  rent,  paid  by  tenant  to  landlord  ;  not 

economic  rent,  the  advantage  enjoyed  by  the  occupant  of  superior  land. 


LAND  AND  RENT. 


30I 


Mr.  Tucker  says  that  the  "liquidation  of  this  value,  whether  immediate 
or  gradual,  is  a  sale,  and  brings  a  right  of  ownership,  which  it  is  not  in 
the  nature  of  rent  to  do.  To  call  this  rent  is  inaccurate."  Now,  this  is  a 
question  of  the  use  of  language.  Accuracy  here,  as  I  maintain,  consists 
in  the  use  of  words  in  their  usual  sense.  I  protest  against  neologies,  or 
arbitrary  definitions,  in  economics  that  make  words  squint,  as  a  perfidy  of 
Socialism  which  engenders  vain  logomachies  and  retards  the  triumph  of 
justice.  The  liquidation  of  the  value  precited,  the  result  of  preparatory 
works,  may  be  effected  either  by  sale  or  by  rentals.  Sale  is  often  impos- 
sible or  unfeasible  ;  it  would  be  so  at  present  for  my  own  farm.  Now, 
comes  in  the  idea  that  each  payment  of  rent  shall  constitute  an  instalment 
of  purchase-money.  This  is  Proudhon's  theory  of  liquidation  with  a  view 
to  the  independent  proprietorship  of  the  soil  by  its  farmers.  It  is  viable 
for  rentals  during  a  term  of  successive  years,  but  is  inapplicable  to  many 
cases  like  the  following.  By  expenditure  of  unpaid  labor  during  several 
years  I  have  prepared  a  field  for  cotton  culture.  An  immigrant,  needing 
to  realize  the  results  of  labor  more  promptly  than  would  be  possible  if  he 
began  by  performing  upon  forest  land  the  kind  of  work  I  have  already 
done,  offers  me  a  fourth  of  the  crop  for  the  use  of  my  field.  This  is  rent. 
The  crop  from  which  it  is  paid  leaves  the  soil  poorer  in  proportion,  and 
the  fences,  etc.,  will  need  repair  at  an  earlier  period.  Thus  each  crop 
may  be  estimated  as  lessening  the  original  value  of  productivity  by  about 
one-tenth,  sometimes  as  much  as  one-fourth.  Now,  the  tenant  profits 
three  times  as  much  as  I  do  at  the  cost  of  my  preparatory  labors.  The 
loss  by  cropping,  of  this  value,  is  the  just  basis  of  rent,  which  leaves  no 
proportion  of  purchase  title  to  the  tenant  during  one  or  a  few  seasons  who 
does  not  manure  or  repair  fences.  The  tenant  who  does  this,  and  thus 
reproduces  the  original  value,  justly  enters  into  proprietorship,  and  his 
rentals  ought  to  be  regarded  as  instalments  of  purchase-money.  There 
lies  the  practical  difference. 

It  is  necessary  to  face  the  facts,  and  to  avoid  confusion  by  abstract 
terminology.  There  is  just  rent,  and  there  is  unjust  rent,  or  the  legal 
abuse  of  the  rental  system.  Abate  the  public  nuisance  of  legislation,  and 
these  matters  are  naturally  arranged  by  contract  between  farmers. 

The  equitable  relations  between  actual  labor  and  the  previous  labors 
that  constitute  capital  in  the  soil,  or  immovable  upon  it,  vary  with  time, 
place,  and  circumstance.  Rulings  concerning  them,  reduced  to  the  pro- 
crustean  measures  of  law,  if  just  for  some  cases,  must  be  unjust  for 
others.  Private  contracts  only  can  approximate  to  justice  ;  and  how 
nearly  they  do  it  is  the  affair  of  the  contracting  parties,  defying  all  pre- 
scriptive formulas.  Edgeworth. 

The  two  works  which  I  recommended  to  Edgeworth  are 
among  Proudhon's  best  ;  but  they  are  very  far  from  all  that 
he  has  written,  and  it  is  very  natural  for  the  reader  of  a  very 
small  portion  of  his  writings  to  draw  inferences  which  he  will 
find  unwarranted  when  he  reads  more.  This  is  due  princi- 
pally to  Proudhon's  habit  of  using  words  in  different  senses  at 
different  times,  which  I  regard  as  unfortunate.  Now,  in  the 
article  which  gave  rise  to  this  discussion,  Edgeworth  inferred 
(or  seemed  to  infer),  from  the  fact  that  some  of  Proudhon's 
transitional  proposals  allowed  a  share  to  capital  for  a  time, 
that  he  contemplated  as  a  permanent  arrangement  a  division 


302 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


of  labor's  earnings  between  labor  and  capital  as  two  distinct 
things.  Lest  this  might  mislead,  I  took  the  liberty  to  correct 
it,  and  to  state  that  Proudhon  thought  labor  the  only  legiti- 
mate title  to  wealth. 

Now  comes  Edgeworth,  and  says  that  he  meant  by  capital 
only  the  result  of  preparatory  labor,  which  is  as  much  en- 
titled to  reward  as  any  other.  Very  good,  say  I  ;  no  one 
denies  that.  But  this  is  not  what  is  ordinarily  meant  by  the 
"  productivity  of  capital  "  ;  and  Edgeworth,  by  his  own  rule,  is 
bound  to  use  words  in  their  usual  sense.  The  usual  sense  of 
this  phrase,  and  the  sense  in  which  the  economists  use  it,  is 
that  capital  has  such  an  independent  share  in  all  production 
that  the  owner  of  it  may  rightfully  farm  out  the  privilege 
of  using  it,  receive  a  steady  income  from  it,  have  it  restored 
to  him  intact  at  the  expiration  of  the  lease,  farm  it  out  again 
to  somebody  else,  and  go  on  in  this  way,  he  and  his  heirs 
forever,  living  in  a  permanent  state  of  idleness  and  luxury 
simply  from  having  performed  a  certain  amount  of  "  prepara- 
tory labor."  That  is  what  Proudhon  denounced  as  si  the 
fiction  of  the  productivity  of  capital "  ;  and  Edgeworth,  in 
interpreting  the  phrase  otherwise,  gives  it  a  very  unusual 
sense,  in  violation  of  his  own  rule. 

Moreover,  what  Edgeworth  goes  on  to  say  about  the  pro- 
portional profits  of  landlord  and  tenant  indicates  that  he  has 
very  loose  ideas  about  the  proper  reward  of  labor,  whether 
present  or  preparatory.  The  scientific  reward  (and  under  ab- 
solutely free  competition  the  actual  reward  is,  in  the  long  run, 
almost  identical  with  it)  of  labor  is  the  product  of  an  equal 
amount  of  equally  arduous  labor.  The  product  of  an  hour 
of  Edgeworth's  labor  in  preparing  a  field  for  cotton  culture, 
and  the  product  of  an  hour  of  his  tenant's  labor  in  sowing 
and  harvesting  the  crop,  ought  each  to  exchange  for  the 
product  of  an  hour's  labor  of  their  neighbor  the  shoemaker, 
or  their  neighbor  the  tailor,  or  their  neighbor  the  grocer,  or 
their  neighbor  the  doctor,  provided  the  labor  of  all  these  par- 
ties is  equally  exhausting  and  implies  equal  amounts  of  ac- 
quired skill  and  equal  outlays  for  tools  and  facilities.  Now, 
supposing  the  cases  of  Edgeworth  and  his  tenant  to  be  repre- 
sentative and  not  isolated  ;  and  supposing  them  to  produce, 
not  for  their  own  consumption,  but  for  the  purpose  of  sale, 
which  is  the  purpose  of  practically  all  production,  it  then 
makes  no  difference  to  either  of  them  whether  their  hour's 
labor  yields  five  pounds  of  cotton  or  fifteen.  In  the  one 
case  they  can  get  no  more  shoes  or  clothes  or  groceries  or 
medical  services  for  the  fifteen  pounds  than  they  can  in  the 


LAND   AND  RENT. 


other  for  the  five.  The  great  body  of  landlords  and  tenants, 
like  the  great  body  of  producers  in  any  other  industry,  does 
not  profit  by  an  increased  productivity  in  its  special  field  of 
work,  except  to  the  extent  that  it  consumes  or  repurchases  its 
own  product.  The  profit  of  this  increase  goes  to  the  people 
at  large,  the  consumers.  So  it  is  not  true  (assuming  always  a 
regime  of  free  competition)  that  Edgeworth's  tenant  "profits 
three  times  as  much  "  as  Edgeworth  because  of  the  latter's 
preparatory  labors.  Neither  of  them  profit  thereby,  but  each 
gets  an  hour  of  some  other  man's  labor  for  an  hour  of  his  own. 

So  much  for  the  reward  of  labor  in  general.  Now  to  get 
back  to  the  question  of  rent. 

If  Edgeworth  performs  preparatory  labor  on  a  cotton  field, 
the  result  of  which  would  remain  intact  if  the  field  lay  idle, 
and  that  result  is  damaged  by  a  tenant,  the  tenant  ought  to 
pay  him  for  it  on  the  basis  of  reward  above  defined.  This 
does  not  bring  a  right  of  ownership  to  the  tenant,  to  be  sure, 
for  the  property  has  been  destroyed  and  cannot  be  purchased. 
But  the  transaction,  nevertheless,  is  in  the  nature  of  a  sale, 
and  not  a  payment  for  a  loan.  Every  sale  is  an  exchange  of 
labor,  and  the  tenant  simply  pays  money  representing  his 
own  labor  for  the  result  of  Edgeworth's  labor  which  he  (the 
tenant)  has  destroyed  in  appropriating  it  to  his  own  use.  If 
the  tenant  does  not  damage  the  result  of  Edgeworth's  prepar- 
atory labor,  then,  as  Edgeworth  admits,  whatever  money  the 
tenant  pays  justly  entitles  him  to  that  amount  of  ownership  in 
the  cotton  field.  Now,  this  money,  paid  over  and  above  all 
damage,  if  it  does  not  bring  equivalent  ownership,  is  payment 
for  use,  usury,  and,  in  my  terminology,  rent.  If  Edgeworth 
prefers  to  use  the  word  rent  to  signify  all  money  paid  to  land- 
lords as  such  by  tenants  as  such  for  whatever  reason,  I  shall 
think  his  use  of  the  word  inaccurate;  but  I  shall  not  quarrel 
with  him,  and  shall  only  protest  when  he  interprets  other 
men's  thought  by  his  own  definitions,  as  he  seemed  to  me  to 
have  done  in  Proudhon's  case.  If  he  will  be  similarly  peace- 
ful towards  me  in  my  use  of  the  word,  there  will  be  no 
logomachy. 

The  difference  between  us  is  just  this.  Edgeworth  says  that 
from  tenant  to  landlord  there  is  payment  for  damage,  and  this 
is  just  rent  ;  and  there  is  payment  for  use,  and  that  is  unjust 
rent.  I  say  there  is  payment  for  damage,  and  this  is  indemni- 
fication or  sale,  and  is  just  ;  and  there  is  payment  for  use,  and 
that  is  rent,  and  is  unjust.  My  use  of  the  word  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  dictionary,  and  is  more  definite  and  discriminat- 
ing than  the  other  ;  moreover,  I  find  it  more  effective  in  argu- 


3°4 


INSTEAD  of   A  BOOK. 


ment.  Many  a  time  has  some  small  proprietor,  troubled  with 
qualms  of  conscience  and  anxious  to  justify  the  source  of  his 
income,  exclaimed,  on  learning  that  I  believe  in  payment  for 
wear  and  tear  :  "  Oh  !  well,  you  believe  in  rent,  after  all  ;  it's 
only  a  question  of  how  much  rent  ;  "  after  which  he  would 
settle  back,  satisfied.  I  have  always  found  that  the  only  way 
to  give  such  a  man's  conscience  a  chance  to  get  a  hold  upon 
his  thought  and  conduct  was  to  insist  on  the  narrower  use  of 
the  word  rent.  It  calls  the  attention  much  more  vividly  to 
the  distinction  between  justice  and  injustice.  If  in  this  I  am 
guilty  of  neology,  I  am  no  more  so  than  in  my  use  of  the  word 
Anarchy,  which  Edgeworth  adopts  with  great  enthusiasm  and 
employs  with  great  effect.  If.  the  "  squint  "  is  what  he  objects 
to,  why  does  it  annoy  him  in  one  case  and  please  him  in  the 
other  ? 

I  must  add  that,  after  what  I  said  in  my  previous  answer  in 
opposition  to  legislative  interference  for  the  control  of  rents, 
etc.,  it  seems  hardly  within  the  limits  of  fair  discussion  to  hint 
that  I  am  in  favor  of  "  procrustean  measures  of  law."  Cer- 
tainly, Edgeworth  does  not  directly  say  so,  but  in  an  article 
avowedly  written  in  answer  to  me  I  cannot  see  how  the  re- 
mark is  otherwise  pertinent. 


RENT  :  PARTING  WORDS. 

[Liberty,  December  12,  1885.] 

The  terminology  employed  by  me  in  the  preceding  numbers  of  Liberty 
needs  no  defence,  as  I  have  used  common  words  in  their  usual  sense  with- 
out regard  to  the  technicalities  of  schoolmen. 

My  admission  that  payments  by  a  tenant  beyond  restoration  of  all  values 
removed  by  crops,  and  during  the  years  of  culture,  should  justly  be  reck- 
oned as  purchase  money,  has  nothing  to  do  with  terminology;  it  employs 
no  words  in  an  unusual  sense.  Therein  consists,  however,  my  radical  ac- 
cord with  Proudhon  and  other  modern  socialists,  and  it  cuts  to  the  root  of 
the  tribune  paid  to  idle  landlords.  The  rent  on  real  estate  in  cities  has  a 
compound  basis;  for,  in  addition  to  the  equivalent  for  repairs  and  taxes 
common  between  it  and  agricultural  rent,  it  includes  an  increment  that 
may  or  may  not  have  been  earned  by  the  owner  and  which  is  generally 
due  to  the  concurrence  of  many  individuals  actuated  by  commercial  and 
other  social  interests.  A  vortex,  the  site  of  which  is  determined  by  some 
local  advantage,  sucks  in  the  population  and  resources  of  a  large  area. 

The  ethical  title  to  the  unearned  increment  of  market  values  in  real  es- 
tate reverts  to  the  municipal  autonomy  (1),  but  its  legal  title  is  now  vested 
with  individuals,  and  is  the  unjust  basis  of  fortunes,  like  that  of  the  As- 
tors  in  New  York  City.    Such  titles  carry  with  them  at  least  hygienic. 


LAND   AND  RENT. 


duties,  and  certain  tenement  blocks  are  fairly  indictable  under  existing 
laws  as  public  nuisances. 

Market  gardens  near  cities  partake  of  this  compound  basis  of  values,  but 
for  agricultural  lands  generally  labor  is  the  only  factor  of  value  and  title  of 
rent.  "  Reduction  to  Procrustean  codes  of  law  of  these  relations  between 
past  and  present  labor  which  constitute  capital  in  the  soil"  is  an  archonis- 
tic  vice  which  I  do  not  attribute  to  Mr.  Tucker,  but  I  perceive  in  his  reply 
some  twinges  of  conscience  which  accuse  his  semi-allegiance  to  "  Pant- 
archate  "  doctrines.  One  of  these  he  brings  forward  in  the  formula  of  ex- 
change of  labor,  hour  for  hour;  an  arrangement  the  feasibility  of  which  is 
narrowly  limited  in  practice,  and  which,  even  when  feasible,  must  be  sub- 
ordinate to  personal  contracts  under  individual  sovereignty.  (2)  The  pre- 
tension to  generalize  it  is  purely  conventional  and  foreign  to  economic 
science.  (3) 

Aiming  at  equalitarian  justice  in  labor  exchange,  Marx  takes  from  statis- 
tical tables  the  average  life  of  laborers  in  each  department,  including  even 
the  manipulation  of  poisons;  then,  if  the  span  of  life  in  these  is  reduced  to, 
say  five  years,  while  in  farm-work  it  is  sixty,  he  makes  one  hour  of  the  lat- 
ter exchange  for  twelve  of  the  former. 

Is  it  necessary  to  expose  the  puerility  of  such  speculative  views?  With 
a  despotic  capitalism  will  cease  the  necessity  for  murderous  industries. 
Honest  labor  owns  no  fealty  to  the  royalty  of  gold;  hence  will  abandon 
the  quicksilver  works  of  the  Rothschilds,  which  have  for  their  chief  object 
the  extraction  of  gold,  to  be  kept  in  vaults  as  the  basis  of  currency.  The 
Labor  and  Produce  Exchange  Bank  annihilates  at  one  blow  the  industrial 
and  the  financial  slavery. 

Honest  labor  has  no  use  for  those  paralyzing  paints  which  are  com- 
pounded with  white  lead.  It  will  forge  its  plows  as  they  were  forged  be- 
fore capitalism  dictated  that  sharpening  process,  to  the  dust  of  which  so 
many  lives  are  sacrificed  by  artifical  phthisis.  I  make  bold  to  declare  that 
not  a  single  murderous  function  will  remain  after  the  emancipation  from 
the  prejudice  of  government,  for  the  political  and  the  economic  despotisms 
.are  Siamese  twins.  But  that  will  not  equalize  exchanges,  hour  for  hour, — 
a  system  whose  occasional  feasibility  cannot  go  behind  personal  contracts, 
and  for  Anarchists  must  be  optional  with  individual  sovereignty.  It  is  a 
rickety  child  of  the  "  Pantarchate,"  that  needs  to  be  bolstered  with  half  a 
dozen  ifs.  Not  only  is  it  incalculable  for  exchanges  between  the  simpler 
forms  of  labor  and  those  requiring  years  of  previous  study,  or  a  costly 
preparation;  (4)  but  even  in  agriculture  or  mechanics,  labor  is  little  more 
than  the  zero  that  gives  value  to  judgment  and  skill,  without  which  its  in- 
tervention is  not  only  worthless,  but  often  detrimental.  (5)  A  mere  plow- 
man in  my  orchard  may  ruin  my  fruit  crop  by  a  day's  faithful  work,  or  a 
surgeon  cripple  me  for  life  by  an  operation  however  well  intended,  and, 
mechanically,  well  performed.  (6) 

The  employer  is  naturally  and  ethically  the  appraiser  of  work,  and  what 
he  wants  to  know  is,  not  the  cost  in  time  or  pains,  but  the  probable  value 
of  the  result,  before  proposing  terms  to  labor.  (7)  Then  the  estimate  of 
costs  enters  into  the  laborer's  answer,  but,  as  he  must  often  accept  work 
the  unforeseen  costs  of  which  exceed  the  compensation,  it  is  unjust  to 
restrict  him  from  indemnifying  himself  on  other  occasions,  by  computing 
the  value  of  his  work  to  the  employer.  (8) 

The  "cost  limit  of  price  "  doctrine  is  another  economic  fantasy  (9)  that 
flouts  practical  expediency,  and,  while  qualifying  particular  estimates,  can 
never  become  a  general  law. 

The  ethical  validity  of  investment  of  past  labor  as  the  basis  of  rent  does 


306 


INSTEAD  OF    A  BOOK. 


not  need  to  lean  upon  the  broken  reed  that  Mr.  Tucker  supplies  in  his  *'if 
its  result  would  remain  intact,  the  field  lying  idle,"  etc.  He  knows  it  could 
not  remain  intact,  for  such  field  would  grow  up  in  grubs  and  the  fences 
would  decay  during  idleness;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  field  would  lie 
idle  because  not  rented,  nor  would  my  loss  in  that  case  be  a  just  reason 
why  I  should  not  share  in  the  fructification  of  my  past  labor  by  another 
man's  actual  labor.  (10)  My  illustration  of  the  mechanism  and  conditions 
of  the  productivity  of  capital  stands  for  itself  and  by  itself  ;  it  is  not  a 
gloze  or  commentary  upon  Proudhon.  His  ideas  and  mine  both  harmo- 
nize with  the  facts  of  the  case;  that  is  our  agreement:  it  is  not  an  affair  of 
mere  verbiage. 

The  field  in  question  owed  its  whole  productivity  to  my  previous  labor. 
Other  land  contiguous  was  free  to  my  tenant's  occupation  and  use,  but 
though  of  equal  original  capacities  was  rejected  by  him  as  a  non-value. 
This  is  true  of  most  agricultural  land.  Only  by  contiguity  to  cities,  or 
in  certain  exceptional  sites,  has  land  any  appreciable  value  independent  of 
labor,  in  this  country. 

I  stated  that,  in  making  a  crop  upon  the  basis  of  values  accumulated  in 
the  soil  by  my  previous'  labor,  the  tenant,  paying  one-fourth,  profited 
three  times  as  much  by  my  previous  labor  as  I  did.  This  is  the  conven- 
tional award  to  his  season's  labor  ;  it  may  be  more  or  less  than  relative 
justice,  but  conventional  rules  or  customs  are  infinitely  preferable  to  arith- 
metical computations  of  a  balance  by  the  hours  of  labor.  Farmers  are  not 
apt  to  be  monomaniacs  of  bookkeeping.  Instead  of  profited,  I  might 
have  written  shared.  The  term  profit  touches  a  hyperaesthetic  spot  in  the 
socialist  brain,  and  makes  thought  fly  off  at  a  tangent,  (n)  Mr.  Tucker's 
commentary  here  is  to  me  a  mere  muddle  of  phrases,  which  it  does  not 
appear  profitable  to  analyze. 

There  is  no  squint  in  our  use  of  the  word  Anarchy.  There  is  a  squint 
in  employing  it  as  a  synonym  with  confusion.  (12)  Edgeworth. 

(1)  This  smacks  of  Henry  George.  If  the  municipality  is 
an  organization  to  which  every  person  residing  within  a  given 
territory  must  belong  and  pay  tribute,  it  is  not  a  bit  more  de- 
fensible than  the  State  itself, — in  fact,  is  nothing  but  a  small 
State  ;  and  to  vest  in  it  a  title  to  any  part  of  the  value  of  real 
estate  is  simply  land  nationalization  on  a  small  scale,  which  no 
Anarchist  can  look  upon  with  favor.  If  the  municipality  is 
a  voluntary  organization,  it  can  have  no  titles  except  what  it 
gets  from  the  individuals  composing  it.  If  they  choose  to 
transfer  their  "unearned  increments"  to  the  municipality,  well 
and  good  ;  but  any  individual  not  choosing  to  do  so  ought  to 
be  able  to  hold  his  "  unearned  increment  "  against  the  world. 
If  it  is  unearned,  certainly  his  neighbors  did  not  earn  it.  The 
advent  of  Liberty  will  reduce  all  unearned  increments  to  a 
harmless  minimum. 

(2)  There  it  is  again.  After  admitting  that  I  do  not  want 
to  impose  this  principle  of  exchange,  why  does  Edgeworth  re- 
mind me  that  it  must  be  "  subordinate,"  etc.?  When  forced 
to  a  direct  answer,  he  allows  that  I  am  not  in  favor  of  legal 
regulation,  but  immediately  he  proceeds  with  his  argument  as 


f.ANP   AND  RKVI 


307 


if  I  were.  .  Logic  commands  him  for  a  moment ;  then  he  lapses 
back  into  his  instinctive  inability  to  distinguish  between  a 
scientific  principle  and  statute  law. 

(3)  Who  pretends  to  generalize  it  ?  Certainly  no  Anarchist. 
The  pretension  is  that  it  will  generalize  itself  as  soon  as  mo- 
nopoly is  struck  down.  This  generalization,  far  from  being 
conventional,  depends  upon  the  abolition  of  conventions.  In- 
stead of  being  narrowly  limited  in  practice,  the  labor  measure 
of  exchange  will  become,  through  Liberty,  an  almost  universal 
fact. 

(4)  Why  incalculable  ?  Suppose* a  boy  begins  farm  labor  at 
fifteen  years  of  age  with  a  prospect  of  fifty  years  of  work  be- 
fore him  at  orje  thousand  dollars  a  year.  Suppose  another  boy 
of  the  same  age  spends  ten  years  and  ten  thousand  dollars  in 
studying  medicine,  and  begins  practice  at  twenty-five  years  of 
age  with  a  prospect  of  forty  years  of  work  before  him.  Is  it 
snch  a  difficult  mathematical  problem  to  find  out  how  great  a 
percentage  the  latter  must  add  to  his  prices  in  order  to  get  in 
forty  years  as  much  as  the  farmer  gets  in  fifty,  and  ten  thou- 
sand dollars  besides  ?  Any  schoolboy  could  solve  it.  Of 
course,  labor  cannot  be  estimated  with  the  same  degree  of 
accuracy  under  all  circumstances;  but  with  the  cost  principle 
as  a  guide  a  sufficient  approximation  to  equity  is  secured,  while 
without  it  there  is  nothing  but  haphazard,  scramble,  and  ex- 
tortion. Edgeworth  is  mistaken,  by  the  way,  regarding  the 
paternity  of  this  principle.  It  is  not  a  child  of  the  "  Pan- 
tarchate,"  or  at  any  rate  only  an  adopted  child,  its  real  father 
having  been  Josiah  Warren,  who  hated  the  "  Pantarchate " 
most  cordially. 

(5)  I  have  never  maintained  that  judgment  and  skill  are  less 
important  than  labor  ;  I  have  only  maintained  that  neither 
judgment  nor  skill  can  be  charged  for  in  equity  except  so  far 
as  they  have  been  acquired.  Even  then  the  payment  is  not 
for  the  judgment  or  skill,  but  for  the  labor  of  acquiring  ;  and, 
in  estimating  the  price,  one  hour  of  labor  in  acquiring  judg- 
ment is  to  be  considered  equal, — not,  as  now,  to  one  day,  or 
week,  or  perhaps  year  of  manual  toil, — but  to  one  hour  of 
manual  toil.  The  claim  for  judgment  and  skill  is  usually  a 
mere  pretext  made  to  deceive  the  people  into  paying  exorbitant 
prices,  and  will  not  bear  analysis  for  a  moment. 

(6)  What  has  this  to  do  with  the  price  of  labor  ?  Imagine 
Edgeworth  or  any  other  sensible  man  employing  an  incom- 
petent surgeon  because  his  services  could  be  had  for  a  dollar 
a  day  less  than  those  of  one  more  competent  !  The  course 
for  sensible  and  just  men  to  follow  is  this  :  Employ  the  best 


3o8 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


workmen  you  can  find  ;  whomsoever  you  employ,  pay  them 
equitably  ;  if  they  damage  you,  insist  that  they  shall  make  the 
damage  good  so  far  as  possible  ;  but  do  not  dock  their  wages 
on  the  supposition  that  they  may  damage  you. 

(7)  On  the  contrary,  the  employee,  the  one  who  does  the 
work,  is  naturally  and  ethically  the  appraiser  of  work,  and  all 
that  the  employer  has  to  say  is  whether  he  will  pay  the  price 
or  not.  Into  his  answer  enters  the  estimate  of  the  value  of 
the  result.  Under  the  present  system  he  offers  less  than  cost, 
and  the  employee  is  forced  to  accept.  But  Liberty  and  com- 
petition will  create  such  an  enormous  market  for  labor  that  no 
workman  will  be  forced  by  his  incompetency  to  work  for  less 
than  cost,  as  he  will  always  be  in  a  position  to  resort  to  some 
simpler  work  for  which  he  is  competent  and  can  obtain  ade- 
quate pay. 

(8)  The  old  excuse  :  to  pay  Paul  I  must  rob  Peter. 

(9)  No,  not  another;  the  same  old  fantasy,  if  it  be  a  fantasy. 
The  fact  that  Edgeworth  supposes  the  exchange  of  labor  for 
labor  to  be  a  different  thing  from  the  "  cost  limit  of  price  " 
doctrine  shows  how  little  he  understands  it. 

(10)  Edgeworth  admitted  in  his  previous  article  that  he 
could  ask  nothing  more  than  that  his  field  should  be  restored 
to  him  intact,  and  that  anything  his  tenant  might  pay  in  ad- 
dition should  be  regarded  as  purchase-money  ;  now  he  not 
only  wants  his  field  restored  intact,  but  insists  on  sharing  in 
the  results  of  his  tenant's  labor.  I  can  follow  in  no  such 
devious  path  as  this. 

(11)  It  would  have  made  no  difference  to  me  had  Edge- 
worth  said  "  shared  "  instead  of  "profited."  In  that  case  I 
should  simply  have  said  that  neither  landlords  nor  tenants  as 
such  (where  there  is  freedom  of  competition)  share  in  the 
results  of  the  extra  fertility  of  soil  due  to  preparatory  labor, 
but  that  those  results  go  to  the  consumers.  And  Edgeworth's 
reply  would  have  been  the  same, — that  my  remarks  were  a 
"  muddle  of  phrases."  Such  a  reply  admits  of  no  discussion. 
Only  our  readers  can  judge  of  its  justice.  In  saying  that 
"  farmers  are  not  apt  to  be  monomaniacs  of  bookkeeping," 
Edgeworth  is  probably  not  aware  that  he  is  calling  Proudhon 
(with  whom  he  so  obstinately  insists  that  he  is  in  accord) 
hard  names.  The  statement  occurs  over  and  over  again  in 
Proudhon's  works  that  bookkeeping  is  the  final  arbiter  in  all 
economical  discussion.  He  never  tires  of  sounding  its  praises. 
And  this  great  writer,  whose  "  radical  accord "  with  Edge- 
worth  "  is  not  a  matter  of  mere  verbiage,"  was  one  of  the 


LAND   AND  RENT. 


3°9 


most  persistent  champions  of  the  cost  principle  and  the  ex- 
change of  labor  hour  for  hour. 

(12)  I  presume  I  am  entirely  safe  in  saying  that  the  word 
Anarchy  is  used  in  the  sense  of  confusion  a  thousand  times 
where  it  is  used  once  in  the  sense  of  Liberty.  Therefore 
Edgeworth's  closing  assertion  that  there  is  no  squint  in  our 
use  of  the  word  Anarchy,"  and  that  "  there  is  a  squint  in  em- 
ploying it  as  a  synonym  with  confusion,"  shows  how  much 
reliance  can  be  placed  upon  his  opening  assertion  that  in 
this  discussion  he  has  "  used  common  words  in  their  usual 
sense." 


PROPERTY  UNDER  ANARCHISM. 

[Liberty,  July  12,  1890.] 

The  current  objection  to  Anarchism,  that  it  would  throw 
property  titles  and  especially  land  titles  into  hopeless  con- 
fusion, has  originated  an  interesting  discussion  in  The  Free  Life 
between  Auberon  Herbert,  the  editor,  and  Albert  Tarn,  an 
Anarchistic  correspondent.  Mr.  Tarn  is  substantially  right  in 
the  position  that  he  takes  ;  his  weakness  lies  in  confining 
himself  to  assertion, —  a  weakness  of  which  Mr.  Herbert 
promptly  takes  advantage. 

Mr.  Tarn's  letter  is  as  follows  : 

To  the  Editor  of  The  Free  Life  : 

Sir, — In  your  article  on  "The  Great  Question  of  Property "  in  last 
week's- Free  Life  you  speak  of  the  weakness  of  the  Anarchist  position  as 
involving  either  "  hard  crystalline  customs  very  difficult  to  alter,"  or  "some 
perpetually  recurring  form  of  scramble." 

It  seems  strange  that  you  can  attribute  to  Anarchy  just  the  very  weak- 
nesses that  characterize  our  present  property  system.  Why,  it  is  now  that 
we  have  "  hard  crystalline  customs  very  difficult  to  alter,"  and  a  "perpet- 
ually recurring" — nay,  a  never-ceasing — "form  of  scramble." 

Anarchists  above  all,  though  in  favor  of  free  competition,  are  averse  to 
the  eternal  scramble  which  is  now  going  on  for  the  privileges  which  legal 
money  and  legal  property  confer,  of  living  at  ease  at  the  expense  of  the 
masses. 

Anarchy  would  sweep  away  such  privileges,  and,  there  being  no  longei 
any  chance  of  obtaining  them,  people  would  simply  work  for  their  living 
and  retain  whatever  they  earn.  There  would  be  little  or  no  quarrel  about 
property,  no  revolutionary  movements  to  try  to  get  hold  of  it,  no  taxes, 
no  State  Socialism.  Why,  all  your  struggles  to-day,  not  only  in  the  work- 
shop and  counting-house,  but  in  the  political  field,  are  caused  by  the  stupid 
laws  of  property  and  money,  whio?Presult  in  a  never-ending  scramble. 

Anarchy  means  peace;  it  means  every  one  getting  what  he's  worth  and 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


no  more, — no  thieving  at  all,  neither  by  landlords,  usurers,  lawyers,  tax- 
collectors,  nor  even  by  pick-pockets  and  burglars  when  the  present  con- 
trasts of  wealth  vanish. 

Your  property  laws  are  just  as  stupid  as  any  other  laws.  They  defeat 
their  own  ends.  Yours  faithfully, 

Albert  Tarn. 

In  Mr.  Herbert's  rejoinder  the  case  against  Anarchism  is 
exceptionally  well  put,  and  for  this  reason  among  others  I  give 
it  in  full : 

It  is  not  enough  for  our  correspondent,  Mr.  Tarn,  to  say  that  Anarchy 
does  away  with  scramble  ;  we  want  to  know  "the  how"  and  "  the  why." 
Our  contention  is  that  under  the  law  of  the  free  market  everybody  knows, 
first,  who  owns  a  particular  piece  of  property,  and,  secondly,  the  con- 
ditions under  which  property  can  be  acquired.  All  is  clear  and  definite, 
and  that  clearness  and  definiteness  are  worth  far  more  to  the  human 
race  in  the  long  run  than  any  temporary  advantage  to  be  gained  by  forcible 
interferings  with  distribution.  On  the  other  hand,  we  say  that  under 
Anarchy  nobody  would  know  to  whom  a  piece  of  property  belonged,  and 
nobody  would  understand  -how  it  was  to  be  transferred  from  A  to  B. 
Take  any  instance  you  like.  Anarchists  generally  define  property  by  use 
and  possession  ;  that  is,  whoever  uses  and  possesses  is  to  be  considered 
owner.  John  Robins  possesses  a  plot  of  three  acres,  and  manages  to 
feed  two  cows  on  it.  John  Smith  possesses  neither  land  nor  cow.  He 
comes  to  John  Robins  and  says  :  "  You  are  not  really  using  and  possess- 
ing these  three  acres;  I  shall  take  half  of  them."  Who  on  earth  is 
to  judge  between  these  men  ?  Who  is  to  say  whether  John  Robins  is 
really  possessing  or  not  ?  Who  is  going  to  say  to  John  Smith  that  he 
shall  not  get  a  bit  of  land  by  "  scramble  "  from  John  Robins,  seeing  that 
under  the  Anarchist  system  that  was  the  very  way  in  which  John  Robins 
himself  got  these  three  acres  from  the  big  landowner,  who,  as  he  said  at 
the  time,  was  not  truly  owning,  because  he  was  not  possessing. 

Mr.  Tarn  finds  fault  with  us  for  saying  that  Anarchy,  or  no  fixed  stand- 
ard of  acquiring  or  owning,  must  lead  either  to  rigid  crystalline  custom  or 
to  scramble.  But  is  that  not  almost  absolutely  certain  ?  At  first  it  must 
be  scramble.  Everybody  who  could  would  take  or  keep  on  the  plea 
of  possession.  We  presume  even  a  weekly  tenant  could  claim  under  the 
same  plea.  But  even  when  the  first  great  scramble  was  over,  the  smaller 
scrambles  would  continue,  —  the  innumerable  adjustments  between  John 
Robins  and  John  Smith  having  to  be  perpetually  made.  But  after  a  cer- 
tain time  the  race  would  tire  of  scramble,  as  it  always  has  done,  and  then 
what  would  happen  ?  Why,  necessarily,  that  a  community  would  silently 
frame  for  itself  some  law  or  custom  that  would  decide  all  these  disputed 
cases.  They  would  say  that  no  man  should  hold  more  than  two  acres  ;  or 
that  no  man  should  be  disturbed  after  so  many  years'  possession  ;  or  they 
would  fix  some  other  standard,  which  would  tend  to  become  rigid  and  crys- 
talline, and  be  very  difficult  to  alter,  just  because  there  was  no  machinery 
lor  altering  it. 

We  say  that  our  friends  the  Anarchists — with  whom,  when  they  are  not 
on  the  side  of  violence,  we  have  much  in  common — must  make  their  posi- 
tion clear  and  definite  about  property.  They  are  as  much  opposed  as  we 
are  to  State-regulated  property  ;  they  are  as  much  in  favor  of  individualis- 
tic property  as  we  are  ;  but  they  will  not  pay  the  price  that  has  to  be  paid 
for  individualistic  property,  and  which  alone  can  make  it  possible.  When 


LAND    AND  RENT. 


3" 


once  you  are  away  from  the  open  market,  there  are  only  two  alternatives, 
—State  regulation  (or  law)  and  scramble.  Every  form  of  property-hold- 
ing, apart  from  the  open  market,  will  be  found  to  be  some  modification  of 
one  of  these  two  forms. 

This  criticism  of  Anarchism,  reduced  to  its  essence,  is  seen 
to  be  twofold.  First,  the  complaint  is  that  it  has  no  fixed 
standard  of  acquiring  or  owning.  Second,  the  complaint  is 
that  it  necessarily  results  in  a  fixed  standard  of  acquiring  or 
owning.  Evidently  Mr.  Herbert  is  a  very  hard  man  to  please. 
Before  he  criticises  Anarchism  further,  I  must  insist  that  he 
make  up  his  mind  whether  he  himself  wants  or  does  not  want 
a  fixed  standard.  And  whatever  his  decision,  his  criticism 
falls.  For  if  he  wants  a  fixed  standard,  that  which  he  may 
adopt  is  as  liable  to  become  a  "  rigid  crystalline  custom  "  as 
any  that  Anarchism  may  lead  to.  And  if  he  does  not  want  a 
fixed  standard,  then  how  can  he  complain  of  Anarchism  for 
having  none  ? 

If  it  were  my  main  object  to  emerge  from  this  dispute  vic- 
torious, I  might  well  leave  Mr.  Herbert  in  the  queer  predica- 
ment in  which  his  logic  has  placed  him.  But  as  I  am  really 
anxious  to  win  him  to  the  Anarchistic  view,  I  shall  try  to 
show  him  that  the  fear  of  scramble  and  rigidity  with  which 
Anarchism  inspires  him  has  little  or  no  foundation. 

Mr.  Herbert,  as  I  understand  him,  believes  in  voluntary 
association,  voluntarily  supported,  for  the  defence  of  person 
and  property.  Very  well  ;  let  us  suppose  that  he  has  won  his 
battle,  and  that  such  a  state  of  things  exists.  Suppose  that 
all  municipalities  have  adopted  the  voluntary  principle,  and 
that  compulsory  taxation  has  been  abolished.  Now,  after  this, 
let  us  suppose  further  that  the  Anarchistic  view  that  occu- 
pancy and  use  should  condition  and  limit  landholding  be- 
comes the  prevailing  view.  Evidently  then  these  municipali- 
ties will  proceed  to  formulate  and  enforce  this  view.  What 
the  formula  will  be  no  one  can  foresee.  But  continuing  with 
our  suppositions,  we  will  say  that  they  decide  to  protect  no 
one  in  the  possession  of  more  than  ten  acres.  In  execution  of 
this  decision,  they,  on  October  i,  notify  all  holders  of  more  than 
ten  acres  within  their  limits  that,  on  and  after  the  following  Jan- 
uary i,  they  will  cease  to  protect  them  in  the  possession  of  more 
than  ten  acres,  and  that,  as  a  condition  of  receiving  even  that 
protection,  each  must  make  formal  declaration  on  or  before  De- 
cember i  of  the  specific  ten-acre  plot  within  his  present  holding 
which  he  proposes  to  personally  occupy  and  use  after  January 
i.  These  declarations  having  been  made,  the  municipalities 
publish  them  and  at  the  same  time  notify  landless  persons 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


that  out  of  the  lands  thus  set  free  each  may  secure  protection 
in  the  possession  of  any  amount  up  to  ten  acres  after  January 
i  by  appearing  on  December  15,  at  a  certain  hour,  and  mak- 
ing declaration  of  his  choice  and  intention  of  occupancy. 
Now,  says  Mr.  Herbert,  the  scramble  will  begin.  Well,  per- 
haps it  will.  But  what  of  it  ?  When  a  theatre  advertises  to 
sell  seats  for  a  star  performance  at  a  certain  hour,  there  is  a 
scramble  to  secure  tickets.  When  a  prosperous  city  an- 
nounces that  on  a  given  day  it  will  accept  loans  from  individ- 
uals up  to  a  certain  aggregate  on  attractive  terms,  there  is  a 
scramble  to  secure  the  bonds.  As  far  as  I  know,  nobody 
complains  of  these  scrambles  as  unfair.  The  scramble  begins 
and  the  scramble  ends,  and  the  matter  is  settled.  Some  in- 
equality still  remains,  but  it  has  been  reduced  to  a  minimum, 
and  everybody  has  had  an  equal  chance  with  the  rest.  So  it 
will  be  with  this  land  scramble.  It  may  be  conducted  as 
peacefully  as  any  other  scramble,  and  those  who  are  fright- 
ened by  the  word  are  simply  the  victims  of  a  huge  bugbear. 

And  the  terror  of  rigidity  is  equally  groundless.  This  rule 
of  ten-acre  possession,  or  any  similar  one  that  may  be 
adopted,  is  no  more  rigid  crystalline  custom  than  is  Mr.  Her- 
bert's own  rule  of  protecting  titles  transferred  by  purchase  and 
sale.  Any  rule  is  rigid  less  by  the  rigidity  of  its  terms  than 
by  the  rigidity  of  its  enforcement.  Now  it  is  precisely  in  the 
tempering  of  the  rigidity  of  enforcement  that  one  of  the  chief 
excellences  of  Anarchism  consists.  Mr.  Herbert  must  re- 
member that  under  Anarchism  all  rules  and  laws  will  be  little 
more  than  suggestions  for  the  guidance  of  juries,  and  that  all 
disputes,  whether  about  land  or  anything  else,  will  be  submit- 
ted to  juries  which  will  judge  not  only  the  facts,  but  the  law, 
the  justice  of  the  law,  its  applicability  to  the  given  circum- 
stances, and  the  penalty  or  damage  to  be  inflicted  because  of 
its  infraction.  What  better  safeguard  against  rigidity  could 
there  be  than  this?  "  Machinery  for  altering"  the  law,  in- 
deed !  Why,  under  Anarchism  the  law  will  be  so  flexible  that 
it  will  shape  itself  to  every  emergency  and  need  no  alteration. 
And  it  will  then  be  regarded  as  just  in  proportion  to  its  flexi- 
bility, instead  of  as  now  in  proportion  to  its  rigidity. 


LAND  AND  REM. 


3*3 


MERE  LAND  NO  SAVIOUR  FOR  LABOR. 

[Liberty,  May  7,  1887.] 

Here  is  a  delicious  bit  of  logic  from  Mr.  George  :  "  If 
capital,  a  mere  creature  of  labor,  is  such  an  oppressive  thing, 
its  creator,  when  free,  can  strangle  it  by  refusing  to  reproduce 
it."  The  italics  are  mine.  If  capital  is  oppressive,  it  must  be 
oppressive  of  labor.  What  difference  does  it  make,  then, 
what  labor  can  do  when  free  ?  The  question  is  what  it  can 
do  when  oppressed  by  capital.  Mr.  George's  next  sentence, 
to  be  sure,  indicates  that  the  freedom  he  refers  to  is  freedom 
from  land  monopoly.  But  this  does  not  improve  his  situation. 
He  is  enough  of  an  economist  to  be  very  well  aware  that, 
whether  it  has  land  or  not,  labor  which  can  get  no  capital — 
that  is,  which  is  oppressed  by  capital — cannot,  without  accept- 
ing the  alternative  of  starvation,  refuse  to  reproduce  capital 
for  the  capitalists. 

It  is  one  thing  for  Mr.  George  to  sit  in  his  sanctum  and 
write  of  the  ease  with  which  a  man  whose  sole  possession  is  a 
bit  of  land  can  build  a  home  and  scratch  a  living  ;  for  the 
man  to  do  it  is  wholly  another  thing.  The  truth  is  that  this 
man  can  do  nothing  of  the  sort  until  you  devise  some  means 
of  raising  his  wages  above  the  cost  of  living.  And  you  can 
only  do  this  by  increasing  the  demand  for  his  labor.  And 
you  can  only  increase  the  demand  for  his  labor  by  enabling 
more  men  to  go  into  business.  And  you  can  only  enable 
more  men  to  go  into  business  by  enabling  them  to  get  capital 
without  interest,  which,  in  Mr.  George's  opinion,  would  be  very 
wrong.  And  you  can  only  enable  them  to  get  capital  without 
interest  by  abolishing  the  money  monopoly,  which,  by  limit- 
ing the  supply  of  money,  enables  its  holders  to  exact  interest. 
And  when  you  have  abolished  the  money  monopoly,  and 
when,  in  consequence,  the  wages  of  the  man  with  the  bit  of 
land  have  begun  to  rise  above  the  cost  of  living,  the  labor 
question  will  be  nine-tenths  solved.  For  then  either  this  man 
will  live  better  and  better,  or  he  will  steadily  lay  up  money, 
with  which  he  can  buy  tools  to  compete  with  his  employer  or 
to  till  his  bit  of  land  with  comfort  and  advantage.  In  short, 
he  will  be  an  independent  man,  receiving  all  that  he  produces 
or  an  equivalent  thereof.  How  to  make  this  the  lot  of  all 
men  is  the  labor  question.  Free  land  will  not  solve  it.  Free 
money,  supplemented  by  free  land,  will. 


314  INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK- 


HENRY  GEORGE'S  "SECONDARY  FACTORS." 

{Liberty,  September  24,  1887.] 

In  trying  to  answer  the  argument  that  land  is  practically 
useless  to  labor  unprovided  with  capital,  Henry  George 
declares  that  "  labor  and  land,  even  in  the  absence  of  sec- 
ondary factors  obtained  from  their  produce,  have  in  their 
union  to-day,  as  they  had  in  the  beginning,  the  potentiality  of 
all  that  man  ever  has  brought,  or  ever  can  bring,  into  being." 

This  is  perfectly  true  ;  in  fact,  none  know  it  better  than  the 
men  whom  Mr.  George  thus  attempts  to  meet. 

But,  as  Cap'n  Cuttle  was  in  the  habit  of  remarking,  "  the 
bearin'  o'  this  'ere  hobserwation  lies  in  the  application  on't," 
and  in  its  application  it  has  no  force  whatever.  Mr.  George 
uses  it  to  prove  that,  if  land  were  free,  labor  would  settle  on 
it,  thus  raising  wages  by  relieving  the  labor  market. 

But  labor  would  do  no  such  thing. 

The  fact  that  a  laborer,  given  a  piece  of  land,  can  build  a 
hut  of  mud,  strike  fire  with  flint  and  steel,  scratch  a  living  with 
his  finger-nails,  and  thus  begin  life  as  a  barbarian,  even  with 
the  hope  that  in  the  course  of  a  lifetime  he  may  slightly  improve 
his  condition  in  consequence  of  having  fashioned  a  few  of  the 
ruder  of  those  implements  which  Mr.  George  styles  "  second- 
ary factors"  (and  he  could  do  no  more  than  this  without  pro- 
ducing for  exchange,  which  implies,  not  only  better  machinery, 
but  an  entrance  into  that  capitalistic  maelstrom  which  would 
sooner  or  later  swallow  him  up), — this  fact,  I  say,  will  never 
prove  a  temptation  to  the  operative  of  the  city,  who,  despite 
his  wretchedness,  knows  something  of  the  advantages  of  civili- 
zation and  to  some  extent  inevitably  shares  them. 

Man  does  not  live  by  bread  alone. 

The  city  laborer  may  live  in  a  crowded  tenement  and  breathe 
a  tainted  air  ;  he  may  sleep  cold,  dress  in  rags,  and  feed  on 
crumbs  ;  but  now  and  then  he  gets  a  glimpse  at  the  morning 
paper,  or,  if  not,  then  at  the  bulletin-board  ;  he  meets  his  fel- 
low-men face  to  face  ;  he  knows  by  contact  with  the  world 
more  or  less  of  what  is  going  on  in  it  ;  he  spends  a  few  pennies 
occasionally  for  a  gallery-ticket  to  the  theatre  or  for  some 
other  luxury,  even  though  he  knows  he  "  can't  afford  it";  he 
hears  the  music  of  the  street  bands  ;  he  sees  the  pictures  in 
the  shop  windows  ;  he  goes  to  church  if  he  is  pious,  or,  if  not, 
perhaps  attends  the  meetings  of  the  Anti-Poverty  Society  and 


LAND   AND  RENT. 


listens  to  stump  speeches  by  Henry  George  ;  and,  wher  all 
these  fail  him,  he  is  indeed  unfortunate  if  some  fellow-laborer 
does  not  invite  him  to  join  him  in  a  social  glass  over  the  near- 
est bar. 

Not  an  ideal  life,  surely  ;  but  he  will  shiver  in  his  garret  and 
slowly  waste  away  from  inanition  ere  he  will  exchange  it  for 
the  semi-barbarous  condition  of  the  backwoodsman  without 
an  axe.  And,  were  he  to  do  otherwise,  I  would  be  the  first  to 
cry  :  The  more  fool  he  ! 

Mr.  George's  remedy  is  similar — at  least  for  a  part  of  man- 
kind— to  that  which  is  attributed  to  the  Nihilists,  but  which 
few  of  them  ever  believed  in, — namely,  the  total  destruction  of 
the  existing  social  order  and  the  creation  of  a  new  one  on  its 
ruins. 

Mr.  George  may  as  well  understand  first  as  last  that  labor 
will  refuse  to  begin  this  world  anew.  It  never  will  abandon 
even  its  present  meagre  enjoyment  of  the  wealth  and  the  means 
of  wealth  which  have  grown  out  of  its  ages  of  sorrow,  suffer- 
ing, and  slavery.  If  Mr.  George  offers  it  land  alone,  it  will 
turn  its  back  upon  him.  It  insists  upon  both  land  and  tools. 
These  it  will  get,  either  by  the  State  Socialistic  method  of  con- 
centrating the  titles  to  them  in  the  hands  of  one  vast  monopoly, 
or  by  the  Anarchistic  method  of  abolishing  all  monopolies,  and 
thereby  distributing  these  titles  gradually  among  laborers 
through  the  natural  channels  of  free  production  and  exchange. 


THE  STATE  SOCIALISTS  AND   HENRY  GEORGE. 

{Liberty,  September  24.  1887.] 

Just  as  I  have  more  respect  for  the  Roman  Catholic  Chris- 
tian who  believes  in  authority  without  qualification,  than  for 
the  Protestant  Christian  who  speaks  in  the  name  of  liberty, 
but  does  not  know  the  meaning  of  the  word,  so  I  have  more 
respect  for  the  State  Socialist  than  for  Henry  George,  and 
in  the  struggle  between  the  two  my  sympathy  is  with  the 
former.  Nevertheless  the  State  Socialists  have  only  themselves 
to  blame  for  the  support  they  have  hitherto  extended  to  George, 
and  the  ridiculous  figure  that  some  of  them  now  cut  in  their 
sackcloth  and  ashes  is  calculated  to  amuse.  Burnette  G.  Has- 
kell, for  instance.  In  his  Labor  Enquirer,  previous  to  the 
issue  of  August  20,  he  had  been  flying  the  following  flag  : 
a  For  President  in  1888,  Henry  George."    But  in  that  issue. 


3i6 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


having  heard  of  the  New  York  schism,  he  lowered  his  colors 
and  substituted  the  following  :  "  For  President  in  1888,  any 
man  who  will  go  as  the  servant  of  the  people  and  not  as  their 
■  boss,'  and  who  understands  that  poverty  can  only  be  abolished 
by  the  abolition  of  the  competitive  wage  system  and  the  inau- 
guration of  State  Socialism."  When  Haskell  hoisted  George's 
name,  did  he  not  know  that  his  candidate  believed  that  pov- 
erty was  not  to  be  abolished  by  the  abolition  of  the  wage  sys- 
tem ?  If  he  did  not  know  this,  his  knowledge  of  his  candi- 
date must  have  been  limited  indeed.  If  he  did  know  it,  the 
change  of  colors  indicates,  not  the  discarding  of  a  leader,  but 
a  revolution  in  ideas.  Yet  Haskell  is  undoubtedly  not  con- 
scious of  any  revolution  in  his  ideas,  and  would  admit  none. 
All  of  which  tends  to  show  that  he  has  no  ideas  definite  enough 
to  be  revolutionized. 


LIBERTY  AND  THE  GEORGE  THEORY. 

[Liberty,  November  5,  1887.] 

There  is  much  in  Liberty  to  admire,  and  in  Anarchism  that  I  believe 
has  a  divine  right  of  way.  But  I  see  little  of  these  qualities  in  the  criti- 
cisms made  by  Editor  Tucker  on  the  George  movement,  and  much,  as  I 
think,  of  the  exaggeration  and  inconsistency  inherent  in  the  Anarchistic 
temper  and  teachings. 

You  have  more  respect,"  you  say,  for  the  State  Socialist  than  for 
Henry  George,"  and  n  in  the  struggle  between  the  two  your  sympathy  is 
with  the  former."  This  is  vague,  to  say  the  least;  and  the  meaning  is 
not  helped  by  the  comparison  with  "  the  Roman  Catholic  who  believes 
in  authority  without  qualification,  and  the  Protestant  who  speaks  in  the 
name  of  liberty,  but  does  not  know  the  meaning  of  the  word."  Such 
expressions  seem  to  me  to  point  no  issue,  but  to  dodge  or  confuse  issues. 
The  question  is  threefold,  relating  to  tactics,  spirit,  and  doctrine,  which 
are  not  always  one,  or  of  the  same  relative  importance.  You  do  not 
say  whether  the  expulsion  of  the  Socialists  was  just,  whether  they  acted 
in  good  faith  as  members  of  the  United  Labor  party,  or  believed  their 
doctrine  had  any  logical  filiation  with  its  platform.  This  ought  to  have 
something  to  do*  with  our  "respect"  and  "  sympathy."  To  hold  to  the 
belief  of  a  Roman  Catholic  is  one  thing,  and  to  enter  an  evangelical 
body  as  an  emissary  of  the  Pope  is  quite  another.  You  seem  to  slur  this 
issue  in  speaking  merely  of  "the  ridiculous  figure  the  Socialists  now  cut 
in  their  sackcloth  and  ashes,"  for  "ridiculous  "  is  not  a  word  of  a  very 
specific  meaning.  But  your  closing  remark  appears  to  be  a  contradiction 
of  the  first  so  praiseful  of  the  simple  stable  views  of  the  State  Socialist ; 
for  of  the  act  of  the  Labor  Enquirer  in  hoisting  Henry  George's  name  one 
day  and  pulling  it  down  the  next  you  say  it  shows,  not  a  revolution  in 
ideas,  but  that  it  had  "  no  ideas  definite  enough  to  be  revolutionized." 


LAND   AND  RENT. 


3!7 


And  do  you  really  believe  that  Protestantism  is  not  an  advance  on 
Roman  Catholicism;  that  such  men  as  Luther,  Wesley,  Channing,  are 
not  as  u  respectable  "  as  the  Roman  pontiffs  ?  Do  you  think  the  apos- 
tate or  rebellious  element  in  both  Church  and  State  is  not  as  deserving 
of  respect  as  the  older  body,  simply  because  it  does  not  reach  the  goal  of 
freedom  at  a  bound  ?  Have  you  more  sympathy  with  Asia  than  Europe, 
with  Europe  than  America,  with  unqualified  despotism  than  with  a  con- 
stitutional monarchy,  with  monarchy  than  with  republicanism?  And  is 
there  no  room  for  theory  or  experiment  between  State  Socialism  and 
Anarchism,  no  foothold  for  large  views  and  manly  purposes  ?  Are 
Henry  George  and  his  co-workers  of  the  class  who  ''  speak  in  the  name 
of  liberty,  but  do  not  know  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  ?  Is  their  talk  and 
spirit  rubbish  by  the  side  no  tonly  of  Anarchism,  but  its  opposite,  State 
Socialism  ?  Did  liberty  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  writing  of  "  Prog- 
ress and  Poverty," — that  book  that  has  set  so  many  to  thinking  and  act- 
ing, and  has  done  more  to  popularize  the  science  of  political  economy 
than  the  writings  of  any  dozen  men,  if  not  of  all  men,  on  that  theme? 
Had  liberty  nothing  to  do  with  the  starting  of  the  Standard,  the  Anti- 
Poverty  Society,  the  anointing  of  McGlynn,  Pentecost,  Huntington, 
Redpath,  McGuire,  and  the  rest  of  the  new  apostolate  of  freedom  ?  I 
am  aware  there  are  things  connected  with  this  reform  to  which  exceptions 
can  and  must  be  made;  but  they  do  not  prove  it  is  not  Liberty's  offspring, 
an  onward  movement  freighted  with  benefit  for  the  race. 

Of  a  piece  with  this  criticism  is  another  article  in  the  same  number,  in 
which  you  go  even  farther,  and  say  :  "  Mr.  George  may  as  well  under- 
stand first  as  last  that  labor  will  refuse  to  begin  this  world  anew.  It 
never  will  abandon  even  its  present  meagre  enjoyment  of  wealth  and  the 
means  of  wealth  which  have  grown  out  of  its  ages  of  sorrow,  suffering, 
and  slavery.  If  Mr.  George  offers  it  land  alone,  it  will  turn  its  back 
upon  him.  It  insists  upon  both  land  and  tools."  That  is  an  astounding 
assertion  that  he  asks  labor  to  "  begin  this  world  anew,"  and  to  "  aban- 
don "  what  it  already  has,  and  ought  to  be  backed  by  some  show  of  argu- 
ment ;  but  I  see  none.  How  are  the  people  to  lose  by  being  made  their 
own  landlords  ?  How  are  they  to  be  robbed  of  their  present  advantages 
in  having  the  land  made  free  ?  Your  whole  argument,  filling  a  column, 
is  that  "the  city  operative  will  not  be  tempted  to  leave  what  he  has  for 
the  semi-barbarous  condition  of  the  backwoodsman  without  an  axe, 
building  a  hut  of  mud,  striking  fire  with  flint  and  steel,  and  scratching  a 
living  with  his  finger  nails"!  Now,  if  the  vacant  lots  and  tracts  of  land 
in  and  about  all  the  cities  are  brought  into  use  by  being  built  upon  or 
cultivated,  will  not  the  stimulus  given  to  industry  and  the  increased  op- 
portunity for  emp'oyment  resulting  therefrom  not  only  enable  the  oper- 
ative to  buy  an  axe,  rake,  hoe,  hammer,  saw,  and  even  a  horse  and 
plough  ?  And  not  only  this,  but  to  find  a  suitable  patch  of  land  without 
going  so  far  beyond  the  boundaries  of  civilization  as  you  imagine  ?  But 
the  idea  is  not  that  every  one  will  become  a  farmer  or  landowner,  but 
that  the  cheapening  and  freeing  of  this  primary  factor  of  production, 
the  land,  will  make  it  possible  for  those  of  very  limited  means  and  re- 
sources to  do  more  for  themselves  and  for  the  world  than  now,  besides 
rendering  capital  more  active,  more  productive  ;  the  clear  tendency  of 
which  would  be  to  relieve  the  labor  market,  and  make  the  demand  for 
labor  greater  than  the  supply,  and  so  raise  wages  and  secure  to  labor  its 
just  reward.  And  you  do  not  see  how  this  is  in  the  interest  of  freedom  ; 
how  the  freeing  of  land  will  enable  men  to  become  the  possessors,  not 
only  of  the  tools  they  need,  but  of  their  individuality  as  well  !  Taking 


3'8 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


taxes  off  industry,  and  substituting  therefor  the  social  values  given  to 
land,  you  call  retrogression,  or  rather  "a  remedy  similar — for  a  part  of 
mankind  at  least — to  that  attributed  to  the  Nihilists,  the  total  destruction 
of  the  existing  social  order,  and  the  creation  of  a  new  one  on  its  ruins  "! 
This  is  wild  talk,  and  is  none  the  less  so  because  of  the  use  of  the  feeble 
adjective,  "  similar,"  and  the  halting  phrase,  "at  least  apart  of  man- 
kind," which  destroy  the  value  of  the  comparison  for  the  purpose  of  argu- 
ment, and,  like  the  words  "respect,"  "  sympathy,"  "  ridiculous,"  and 
"  semi- barbarous, "  show  that  Liberty,  the  Anarchist  organ  par  excellence, 
may  dogmatize  instead  of  reason,  and  make  personal  dictum  or  caprice 
the  standard  of  right. 

But  there  is  something  of  more  consequence  than  the  vulnerable  points 
in  Liberty's  logic,  for  it  goes  deeper.  Granting  that  this  reform  does 
mean  the  creation  of  a  new  order  involving  losses  and  sacrifices  to  the 
individual  for  a  generation,  is  that  its  condemnation  ?  Words  cannot 
express  my  astonishment  at  the  manner  in  which  Liberty  tells  its  read- 
ers that  the  city  operative  cannot  be  tempted  "to  begin  life  as  a  barbar- 
ian, even  with  the  hope  that  in  the  course  of  a  lifetime  he  may  slightly 
improve  his  condition,"  for  he  would  be  a  "  fool  "  not  to  prefer  to  this 
the  city  with  its  "street  bands,"  "shop  windows,"  "theatres,"  and 
"churches,"  even  though  he  have  to  "  breathe  tainted  air"  and  "dress 
in  rags."  Ah,  it  is  indeed  true,  as  you  say,  "  man  does  not  live  by  bread 
alone,"  and  for  that  reason  he  prefers  pure  air  and  independence  along 
with  isolation  and  struggle,  to  tainted  air  and  serfdom  along  with  brass 
bands  and  hand  organs,  gaudy  windows,  and  Black  Crook  performances. 
But  is  that  "  beginning  life  as  a  barbarian,"  no  matter  with  implements 
however  rude,  at  places  however  remote  from  the  centres  of  pride  and 
luxury,  with  fruits  of  toil  however  slow  in  ripening,  if  the  persons  are 
moved  by  the  thought  of  bettering,  not  their  own  condition  merely,  but 
that  of  the  world,  of  the  generations  to  come?  Have  not  the  pioneers  of 
freedom,  the  vanguards  of  civilization,  again  and  again  "  begun  life  as 
the  barbarian,"  so  to  speak?  This  reform,  it  is  true,  means  "bread," 
but  bread  for  all,  though  there  be  luxury  for  none.  We  know  the  advan- 
tages of  city  life,  and  for  that  reason  we  would  deny  ourselves  those  ad- 
vantages in  order  that  cities  might  spread  and  civilization  expand. 

We  want  the  earth,  but  do  not  mean  to  run  away  with  it;  there  will 
still  be  plenty  of  room, — yes,  more  than  before,  far  more.  It  will  be  the 
beginning,  not  the  end,  of  reform;  not  the  last  step,  but  a  great  stride 
forward.  Socialism  and  Anarchism  will  both  have  a  better  chance  then 
than  now,  if  the  insufficiency  of  the  principle  is  proven.  For  it  is  Social- 
istic in  asserting  the  common  ownership  of  the  soil  and  governmental 
control  of  such  things  as  are  in  their  nature  monopolies,  while  it  is  An- 
archistic in  leaving  all  else  to  the  natural  channels  of  free  production  and 
exchange,  to  free  contract  and  spontaneous  co-operation. 

T.  W.  Curtis. 

Mr.  Curtis's  criticisms  are  based  upon  a  series  of  misappre- 
hensions of  Liberty's  statements,  and  in  one  instance  upon 
something  that  looks  very  like  deliberate  misrepresentation. 

In  the  first  place,  he  misapprehends  my  expression  of 
greater  respect  for  and  sympathy  with  the  State  Socialists  than 
Henry  George,  seeming  to  think  that  this  preference  included 
in  its  sweep  not  only  matters  of  doctrine,  but  matters  of 
tactics  and  spirit.    The  form  of  my  assertion  shows  that  I 


I  AND    AM)  KENT. 


319 


confined  it  to  doctrine  simply.  The  declaration  was  tnat  I 
have  more  respect  for  the  State  Socialists  than  for  George, 
"  just2&  I  have  more  respect  for  the  Roman  Catholic  Christian, 
who  believes  in  authority  without  qualification,  than  for  the 
Protestant  Christian,  who  speaks  in  the  name  of  liberty,  but 
does  not  know  the  meaning  of  the  word."  No  one  but  Mr. 
Curtis  would  dream  of  inferring  from  these  words  that  I  prefer 
the  tactics  and  spirit  of  Torquemada  to  those  of  Channing. 
I  left  tactics  and  spirit  entirely  aside  in  making  the  above 
statement.  In  respect  to  conduct  I  asserted  superiority  neither 
for  the  State  Socialist  nor  for  George.  Whether  the  State  Social- 
ists went  to  George  or  he  went  to  them,  or  which  seceded  from 
or  betrayed  the  other,  are  questions  which  interest  me  only  in 
a  minor'degree.  To  me  reason  is  the  highest  and  grandest 
faculty  of  man;  and  I  place  George  lower  in  my  esteem  than 
the  State  Socialist,  because  I  consider  him  the  greater  offender 
against  reason.  This  is  the  sense  in  which  I  prefer  Catholicism 
to  Protestantism,  Asia  to  Europe,  and  monarchy  to  republi- 
canism. The  Catholic,  the  Asiatic,' and  the  monarch  are  more 
logical,  more  consistent,  more  straightforward,  less  corkscrewy, 
more  strictly  plumb-line  than  the  Protestant,  the  European, 
and  the  republican.  This  is  not  a  novel  idea,  and  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  account  for  Mr.  Curtis's  suprise  over  it.  Did  he  never 
hear  that  there  is  no  half-way  house  between  Rome  and 
Reason  ?  Likewise  there  is  no'  room  for  logical,  consistent 
theory  or  intelligent,  systematic  experiment  between  State 
Socialism  and  Anarchism.  There  is  plenty  of  room  between 
them  to  jumble  theories  and  to  experiment  blindly,  but  that  is 
all.    The  pity  is  that  room  of  this  kind  should  be  so  popular. 

Yes,  Henry  George  and  his  co-workers  are  of  that  class  who 
"  speak  in  the  name  of  liberty,  but  do  not  know  the  meaning 
of  the  word."  Mr.  George  has  no  conception  of  liberty  as  a 
universal  social  law.  He  happens  to  see  that  in  some  things  it 
would  lead  to  goodresults,  and  therefore  in  those  things  favors 
it.  But  it  has  never  dawned  upon  his  mind  that  disorder  is 
the  inevitable  fruit  of  every  plant  which  has  authority  for  its 
root.  As  John  F.  Kelly  says  of  him,  "  he  is  inclined  to  look 
with  favor,  on  the  principle  of  laissez  /aire,  yet  he  will  abandon 
it  at  any  moment,  whenever  regulation  seems  more  likely  to 
produce  immediate  benefits,  regardless  of  the  evils  thereby 
produced  by  making  the  people  less  jealous  of  State  interfer- 
ence." The  nature  of  his  belief  in  liberty  is  well  illustrated 
by  his  attitude  on  the  tariff  question.  One  would  suppose  from 
his  generalization  that  he  has  the  utmost  faith  in  freedom  of 
competition;  but  one  does  not  realize  how  little  this  faith 


320 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


amounts  to  until  he  hears  him,  after  making  loud  free-trade 
professions,  propose  to  substitute  a  system  of  bounties  for  the 
tariff  system.  If  such  political  and  economic  empiricism  is 
not  rubbish  beside  the  coherent  proposals  of  either  Anar- 
chism or  State  Socialism,  then  I  don't  know  chaff  from  wheat. 

Liberty,  of  course,  had  something  to  do  with  the  writing  of 
"  Progress  and  Poverty."  It  also  had  something  to  do  with  the 
framing  of  divorce  laws  as  a  relief  from  indissoluble  marriage. 
But  the  divorce  laws,  instead  of  being  libertarian,  are  an 
express  recognition  of  the  rightfulness  of  authority  over  the 
sexual  relations.  Similarly  "  Progress  and  Poverty  "  expressly 
recognizes  the  rightfulness  of  authority  over  the  cultivation 
and  use  of  land.  For  some  centuries  now  evolution  has  been 
little  else  than  the  history  of  liberty  ;  nevertheless  all  its  fac- 
tors have  not  been  children  of  liberty. 

Mr.  Curtis  tries  to  convict  me  of  contradiction  by  pointing 
to  my  statement  that  Burnette  Haskell,  a  State  Socialist,  has  no 
definite  ideas.  This  he  thinks  inconsistent  with  my  praise  of 
the  simple  stable  views  of  the  State  Socialist.  Here  is  where 
the  color  of  misrepresentation  appears.  In  order  to  make  his 
point  Mr.  Curtis  is  obliged  to  quote  me  incorrectly.  He  attrib- 
utes to  me  the  following  phrase:  "  the  ridiculous  figure  the 
Socialists  now  cut  in  their  sackcloth  and  ashes."  My  real  words 
were:  "  the  ridiculous  figure  that  some  of  them  now  cut  in  their 
sackcloth  and  ashes."  It  makes  all  the  difference  whether  in 
this  sentence  I  referred  to  the  whole  body  of  State  Socialists 
or  only  to  a  few  individuals  among  them.  It  was  precisely 
because  I  was  about  to  criticise  the  conduct  of  one  State 
Socialist  in  order  to  show  that  he  had  no  real  idea  of  State 
Socialism  that  I  felt  it  necessary  to  preface  my  criticism  by 
separating  doctrine  from  conduct  and  declaring  my  preference 
for  the  State  Socialist  over  George  in  the  matter  of  doctrine. 
But  Mr.  Curtis  will  have  it  that  I  took  Haskell  as  a  typicaJ 
State  Socialist,  even  if  he  has  to  resort  to  misquotation  to 
prove  it. 

He  next  turns  his  attention  to  the  editorial  on  "  Secondary 
Factors."  He  thinks  that  my  assertion  that  George  asks  labor 
to  "  begin  this  world  anew  "  ought  to  be  backed  by  some  show 
of  argument.  Gracious  heavens  !  I  backed  it  at  the  begin- 
ning of  my  article  by  a  quotation  from  George  himself.  Dis- 
lodged by  his  critics  from  one  point  after  another,  George  had 
declared  that  "  labor  and  land,  even  in  the  absence  of  second- 
ary factors  obtained  from  their  produce,  have  in  their  union  to- 
day, as  they  had  in  the  beginning,  the  potentiality  of  all  that 
man  ever  has  brought,  or  ever  can  bring,  into  being."  When 


LAND   AND  RENT. 


such  words  as  these  are  used  to  prove  that,  if  land  were  free, 
labor  would  settle  on  it,  even  without  secondary  factors, — that 
is,  without  tools, — what  do  they  mean  except  that  the  laborer  is 
expected  to  "  begin  this  world  anew "  ?  But  if  this  is  not 
enough  for  Mr.  Curtis,  may  I  refer  him  to  the  debate  between 
George  and  Shewitch,  in  which  the  former,  being  asked  by  the 
latter  what  would  have  become  of  Friday  if  Crusoe  had  fenced 
off  half  the  island  and  turned  him  loose  upon  it  without  any 
tools,  answered  that  Friday  would  have  made  some  fish-hooks 
out  of  bones  and  gone  fishing  ?  Isn't  that  sufficiently  prim- 
itive to  substantiate  my  assertion,  Mr.  Curtis  ?  Tell  Mr. 
George  that  the  laborer  can  do  nothing  without  capital,  and  he 
will  answer  you  substantially  as  follows:  Originally  there  was 
nothing  but  a  naked  man  and  the  naked  land  ;  free  the  land, 
and  then,  if  the1  laborer  has  no  tools,  he  will  again  be  a  naked 
man  on  naked  land  and  can  do  all  that  Adam  did.  When 
I  point  out  that  such  a  return  to  barbarism  is  on  a  par  with 
the  remedy  attributed  to  the  Nihilists,  the  total  destruction  of 
the  existing  social  order,  Mr.  Curtis  asserts  that  "this  is  wild 
talk  ;  "  but  his  assertion,  it  seems  to  me,  "  ought  to  be  backed 
by  some  show  of  argument." 

He  is  sure,  however,  that  there  is  no  need  of  going  to  the 
backwoods.  There  is  enough  vacant  land  in  the  neighborhood 
of  cities,  he  thinks,  to  employ  the  surplus  workers,  and  thus 
relieve  the  labor  market.  But  this  land  will  not  employ  any 
workers  that  have  no  capital,  and  those  that  have  capital  can  get 
the  land  now.  Thus  the  old  question  comes  back  again.  Make 
capital  free  by  organizing  credit  on  a  mutual  plan,  and  then 
these  vacant  lands  will  come  into  use,  and  then  industry  will 
be  stimulated,  and  then  operatives  will  be  able  to  buy  axes 
and  rakes  and  hoes,  and  then  they  will  be  independent  of 
their  employers,  and  then  the  labor  problem  will  be  solved. 

My  worst  offence  Mr.  Curtis  reserves  till  the  last.  It  con- 
sists in  telling  the  workingman  that  he  would  be  a  fool  not  to 
prefer  the  street  bands,  the  shop  windows,  the  theatres,  and 
the  churches  to  a  renewal  of  barbaric  life.  Mr.  Curtis  again 
misapprehends  me  in  thinking  that  I  commend  the  bands,  the 
windows,  etc.  I  said  explicitly  that  there  is  nothing  ideal 
about  them.  But  society  has  come  to  be  man's  dearest  pos- 
session, and  the  advantages  and  privileges  which  I  cited, 
crude  and  vulgar  and  base  as  some  of  them  are,  represent 
society  to  the  operative.  He  will  not  give  them  up,  and  I 
think  he  is  wise.  Pure  air  is  good,  but  no  one  wants  to 
breathe  it  long  alone.  Independence  is  good,  but  isolation  is 
oo  heavy  a  price  to  pay  for  it.    Both  pure  air  and  independ- 


322 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


ence  must  be  reconciled  with  society,  or  not  many  laborers 
will  ever  enjoy  them.  Luckily  they  can  be  and  will  be, 
though  not  by  taxing  land  values.  As  for  the  idea  that  per- 
sons can  be  induced  to  become  barbarians  from  altruistic 
motives  in  sufficient  numbers  to  affect  the  labor  market,  it  is 
one  that  I  have  no  time  to  discuss.  In  one  respect  at  least 
Mr.  George  is  preferable  to  Mr.  Curtis  as  an  opponent  :  he 
usually  deals  in  economic  argument  rather  than  sentimen- 
talism. 


A  CRITICISM  THAT  DOES  NOT  APPLY. 

[Liberty,  July  16,  1887.] 

7"o  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

It  pains  me  to  see  your  frequent  attacks  on  Henry  George,  as  they  make 
the  defenders  of  monopolies  secure  in  the  knowledge  that  there  is  discord 
in  the  ranks  of  the  reformers.  It  appears  to  me — though  I  may  be  mis- 
taken and  will  gladly  accept  arguments  and  refutation — that  one  impor- 
tant point  of  the  land  question  has  escaped  your  attention,  just  as  the  vital 
point  of  the  money  question  does  not  seem  to  be  clear  to  the  editor  of  the 
Standard.  It  is  my  conviction  that  in  a  state  of  perfect  liberty,  assuming 
the  existence  of  "  intelligent  egoism,"  the  people  will  combine  for  mutual 
protection,  and  among  other  things  will  enter  a  social  compact  creating  an 
equitable  right  of  property.  They  will  also  protect  their  members  in  the 
possession  of  the  land  they  till,  or  on  which  they  ply  their  trade  or  build 
their  homes.  But  since  some  land  possesses  advantages  over  other 
land,  they  will  demand  an  equitable  remuneration  for  this  protection  and 
renunciation,  especially  if  it  can  be  shown  to  cost  the  consumers  of  what- 
ever is  produced  under  these  special  advantages  exactly  as  much  as  the 
holder  of  land  is  able  to  obtain  as  "  rent  "  (Ricardo's  "  rent,"  John  Stuart 
Mill's  "  unearned  increment").  The  community  would  therefore  collect 
the  rent  in  the  form  of  taxes, — i.e.,  equitable  pay  for  the  right  of  posses- 
sion,— and,  to  be  perfectly  fair,  should  divide  the  proceeds  among  those 
consumers  who,  through  the  operation  of  the  law  of  supply  and  demand, 
were  forced  to  pay  more  than  the  average  cost.  But  as  such  distribution 
would  be  practically  impossible,  the  proceeds  of  this  taxation  should  be 
used  as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  advantage  of  those  to  whom  it  equitably 
belongs.  Can  you  suggest  a  better  disposal  than  Henry  George  does  ? 
If  so,  we  are  ready  to  hear.  But  please  admit,  or  else  refute,  the  state- 
ment that  the  collection  of  rent  by  the  community  would  be  the  natural 
outgrowth  of  equitable  social  compact  entered  for  the  sake  of  order  and 
peace  in  a  state  of  perfect  liberty  among  intelligently  egoistical  beings. 

You  cannot  convince  Henry  George  of  the  error  of  his  position  in  rela- 
tion to  capital,  if  you  deride  the  truths  he  advances  together  with  his 
errors.  Let  us  reason  together,  and  I  am  sure  we  can  ultimately  unite  on 
one  platform, — i.e.,  the  abolition  of  all  unjust  laws,  of  which  the  permis- 
sion given  to  individual  persons  of  appropriating  the  unearned  increment 
(which  has  a  natural,  not  an  artificial,  origin)  is  not  by  any  means  the 
least.  Egoist. 

Philadelphia,  May  n,  1887. 

V- 


I. AND   AND  RENT 


323 


My  correspondent,  who,  by  the  way,  is  a  highly  intelligent 
man,  and  has  a  most  clear  understanding  of  the  money  ques- 
tion, should  point  out  the  truths  that  I  have  derided  before 
accusing  me  of  deriding  any.  I  certainly  never  have  derided 
the  truth  contained  in  Ricardo's  theory  of  rent.  What  I  have 
derided  is  Henry  George's  proposal  that  a  majority  of  the 
people  shall  seize  this  rent  by  force  and  expend  it  for  their 
own  benefit,  or  perhaps  for  what  they  are  pleased  to  consider 
the  benefit  of  the  minority.  I  have  also  derided  many  of  the 
arguments  by  which  Mr.  George  has  attempted  to  justify  this 
proposal,  many  of  which  he  has  used  in  favor  of  interest  and 
other  forms  of  robbery,  and  his  ridiculous  pretence  that  he  is 
a  champion  of  liberty.  But  I  have  never  disputed  that,  under 
the  system  of  land  monopoly,  certain  individuals  get,  in  the 
form  of  rent,  a  great  deal  that  they  never  earned  by  their 
labor,  or  that  it  would  be  a  great  blessing  if  some  plan  should 
be  devised  and  adopted  whereby  this  could  be  prevented 
without  violating  the  liberty  of  the  individual.  I  am  con- 
vinced, however,  that  the  abolition  of  the  money  monopoly, 
and  the  refusal  of  protection  to  all  land  titles  except  those  of 
occupiers,  would,  by  the  emancipation  of  the  workingman  from 
his  present  slavery  to  capital,  reduce  this  evil  to  a  very  small 
fraction  of  its  present  proportions,  especially  in  cities,  and 
that  the  remaining  fraction  would  be  the  cause  of  no  more 
inequality  than  arises  from  the  unearned  increment  derived 
by  almost  every  industry  from  the  aggregation  of  people  or 
from  that  unearned  increment  of  superior  natural  ability  which, 
even  under  the  operation  of  the  cost  principle,  will  probably 
always,  enable  some  individuals  to  get  higher  wages  than  the 
average  rate.  In  all  these  cases  the  margin  of  difference 
will  tend  steadily  to  decrease,  but  it  is  not  likely  in  any  of 
them  to  disappear  altogether.  Whether,  after  the  abolition 
of  the  State,  voluntary  co-operators  will  resort  to  communis- 
tic methods  in  the  hope  of  banishing  even  these  vestiges  of 
inequality  is  a  question  for  their  own  future  consideration, 
and  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  'scheme  of  Henry 
George.  For  my  part,  I  should  be  inclined  to  regard  such  a 
course  as  a  leap  not  from  the  frying-pan  into  the  fire,  but 
from  a  Turkish  bath  into  the  nethermost  hell.  I  take  no 
pleasure  in  attacking  Mr.  George,  but  shall  probably  pursue 
my  present  policy  until  he  condescends  to  answer  and  refute 
my  arguments,  if  he  can,  or  gives  some  satisfactory  reason  for 
declining  to  do  so. 


324 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


LAND  OCCUPANCY  AND  ITS  CONDITIONS. 

{Liberty,  August  27,  1887  ] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

Your  reply  of  July  16,  1887,  to  my  letter  is  not  at  all  satisfactory  to 
me.  I  cannot  with  my  best  endeavor  harmonize  your  statement  :  "  I  am 
convinced,  however,  that  the  abolition  of  the  money  monopoly  and  the 
refusal  of  protection  to  all  land  titles  except  those  of  occupiers  would  .  . 
reduce  this  evil  to  a  very  small  fraction  of  its  present  proportions  "  (the 
italics  are  mine),  with  your  opposition  to  all  government.  The  natural 
inference  of  your  statement  is  that  you  are  in  favor  of  protecting  the 
occupier  of  land.  Who  is  to  give  this  protection  ?  Who  is  to  wield  this 
authority?  As  regards  the  application  of  authority,  I  can  see  a  distinc- 
tion in  degree  only,  none  in  principle,  between  the  tacit,  unwritten  agree- 
ment of  an  uncultured  tribe  to  ostracize  the  thief  and  wrong-doer  and 
the  despotic  government  of  a  tyrannical  autocrat.  Without  authority  of 
some  kind  rights  cannot  exist.  The  right  of  undisturbed  possession,  called 
ownership,  is  invariably  the  result  of  an  agreement,  by  which  all  others 
not  only  abstain  from  taking  possession,  but  even  give  assistance  socially 
or  physically,  should  any  one  trespass  this  agreement.  But  just  therein 
consists  the  authority  which  the  strong  exercise  over  the  weak,  or  the 
many  over  the  few.  In  my  opinion  there  can  be  no  objection  to  such 
agreements  or  laws,  when  they  are  strictly  based  upon  equity, — nay,  they 
are  the  necessary  basis  of  order  and  civilization  ;  they  are,  in  fact,  my 
ideal  of  a  government.  Only  when  they  favor  one  class  at  the  expense 
of  another,  when  they  are  inequitable,  can  they  become  the  instrument  of 
oppression,  and  some  men  will  find  it  to  their  supposed  advantage  to  sup- 
port such  laws  by  fair  or  unfair  means,  most  frequently  by  making  use  of 
the  ignorance  and  superstition  of  the  masses,  who  are  known  to  fly  to 
arms  and  shed  their  blood  even  for  the  most  tyrannical  dictator. 

I  understand  you  to  favor  the  ownership  of  land  based  upon  occupancy. 
You  believe  that  under  absolute  individual  freedom  ail  men  will  abstain 
from  disturbing  the  occupier  of  land  in  his  possession.  To  this  view  I 
take  exception.  The  choice  spots  will  be  coveted  by  others,  and  it  is  not 
human  nature  to  relinquish  any  advantage  without  a  sufficient  cause.  If 
you  say  the  occupiers  of  these  choice  spots  should  be  left  undisturbed 
possessors  without  paying  an  equivalent  for  the  special  advantage  they 
enjoy,  you  will  find  many  of  contrary  opinion  who  must  be  coerced  to 
this  agreement.  Egoism,  when  coupled  with  the  knowleage  that  iniquity 
must  inevitably  lead  to  revolution,  will  accept  as  a  most  equitable  condi- 
tion that  in  which  the  recipient  of  the  necessary  protection  pays  to  the 
protector  the  value  of  the  right  of  undisturbed  possession  ;  in  which  he 
returns  to  those  who  agree  to  abandon  to  him  a  special  natural  or  local 
advantage  its  full  value—  i.e.,  the  unearned  increment — as  a  compensation 
for  the  grant  of  the  right  of  ownership. 

The  defence  of  occupying  ownership  of  land  seems  to  me  at  a  par  with 
the  frequent  retort  to  money  reformers  that  evervbody  has  an  equal  right 
to  become  a  banker  or  a  capitalist.  An  equitable  relation  will  be  pre- 
vented by  the  natural  limitation  of  land  in  one,  by  theartifical  limitation  of 
the  medium  of  exchange  in  the  other  case.  You  may  perhaps  have  reason 
to  object  to  applying  the  rent,  after  it  has  been  collected,  in  the  manner 


LAND 


AND  RENT. 


suggested  by  Henry  George;  but  I  fail  to  see  how  you  can  reasonably  op- 
pose the  collection  of  rent  for  the  purpose  of  an  equitable  distribution. 

Egoist. 

Egoist's  acquaintance  with  Liberty  is  of  comparatively  re- 
cent date,  but  it  is  hard  to  understand  how  he  could  have 
failed  to  find  out  from  it  that,  in  opposing  all  government,  it  so 
defines  the  word  as  to  exclude  the  very  thing  which  Egoist 
considers  ideal  government.  It  has  been  stated  in  these 
columns  I  know  not  how  many  times  that  government, 
Archism,  invasion,  are  used  here  as  equivalent  terms  ;  that 
whoever  invades,  individual  or  State,  governs  and  is  an 
Archist  ;  and  that  whoever  defends  against  invasion,  individ- 
ual or  voluntary  association,  opposes  government  and  is  an 
Anarchist.  Now,  a  voluntary  association  doing  equity  would 
not  be  an  invader,  but  a  defender  against  invasion,  and  might 
include  in  its  defensive  operations  the  protection  of  the  oc- 
cupiers of  land.  With  this  explanation,  does  Egoist  perceive 
any  lack  of  harmony  in  my  statements  ?  Assuming,  then,  pro- 
tection by  such  a  method,  occupiers  would  be  sure,  no  matter 
how  covetous  others  might  be.  But  now  the  question  recurs  : 
What  is  equity  in  the  matter  of  land  occupancy  ?  I  admit  at 
once  that  the  enjoyment  by  individuals  of  increment  which 
they  do  not  earn  is  not  equity.  On  the  other  hand,  I  insist 
that  the  confiscation  of  such  increment  by  the  State  (not  a 
voluntary  association)  and  its  expenditure  for  public  purposes, 
while  it  might  be  a  little  nearer  equity  practically  in  that  the 
benefits  would  be  enjoyed  (after  a  fashion)  by  a  larger  number 
of  persons,  would  be  exactly  as  far  from  it  theoretically, 
inasmuch  as  the  increment  no  more  belongs  equally  to  the 
public  at  large  than  to  the  individual  land-holder,  and  would 
still  be  a  long  way  from  it  even  practically,  for  the  minority, 
not  being  allowed  to  spend  its  share  of  the  increment  in  its 
own  way,  would  be  just  as  truly  robbed  as  if  not  allowed  to 
spend  it  at  all.  A  voluntary  association  in  which  the  land- 
holders should  consent  to  contribute  the  increment  to  the  as- 
sociation's treasury,  and  in  which  all  the  members  should 
agree  to  settle  the  method  of  its  disposition  by  ballot,  would 
be  equitable  enough,  but  would  be  a  short-sighted,  wasteful, 
and  useless  complication.  A  system  of  occupying  ownership, 
however,  accompanied  by  no  legal  power  to  collect  rent,  but 
coupled  with  the  abolition  of  the  State-guaranteed  monopoly 
of  money,  thus  making  capital  readily  available,  would  dis- 
tribute the  increment  naturally  and  quietly  among  its  rightful 
owners.  If  it  should  not  work  perfect  equity,  it  would  at  least 
effect  a  sufficiently  close  approximation  to  it,  and  without 


326 


INSTEAD  OF  A  ]:<><)k. 


trespassing  at  all  upon  the  individualities  of  any.  Spots  are 
"  choice  "  now  very  largely  because  of  monopoly,  and  those 
which,  under  a  system  of  free  land  and  free  money,  should  still 
remain  choice  for  other  reasons  would  shed  their  benefits  upon 
all,  just  in  the  same  way  that  choice  countries  under  free 
trade  will,  as  Henry  George  shows,  make  other  countries 
more  prosperous.  When  people  see  that  such  would  be  the 
result  of  this  system,  it  is  hardly  likely  that  many  of  them  will 
have  to  be  coerced  into  agreeing  to  it.  I  see  no  point  to 
Egoist's  analogy  in  the  first  sentence  of  his  last  paragraph,  un- 
less he  means  to  deny  the  right  of  the  individual  to  become  a 
banker.  A  more  pertinent  analogy  would  be  a  comparison  of 
the  George  scheme  for  the  confiscation  of  rent  with  a  system 
of  individual  banking  of  which  the  State  should  confiscate 
the  profits. 


COMPETITIVE  PROTECTION. 

[Liberty,  October  13,  1888.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

You  have  more  than  once  expressed  the  view  that  in  an  Anarchistic 
state  even  the  police  protection  may  be  in  private  hands  and  subject  to 
competition,  so  that  whoever  needs  protection  may  hire  it  from  which- 
ever person  or  company  he  chooses.  Now,  suppose  two  men  wish  to  oc- 
cupy the  same  piece  of  land  and  appeal  to  rival  companies  for  protection. 
What  wili  be  the  result  ? 

It  appears  to  me  that  there  will  be  interminable  contention  as  long  as 
there  is  a  plurality  of  protectors  upon  the  same  territory,  and  that  ulti- 
mately all  others  must  submit  to,  or  be  absorbed  by,  one,  to  which  all  who 
need  protection  must  apply.  If  I  am  right,  then  Anarchy  is  impossible, 
and  an  equitable  democratic  government  the  only  stable  form  of  society. 
Moreover,  as  it  can  be  shown  that  the  value  of  the  protection  to  the  pos- 
session of  land  equals  its  economic  rent,  free  competition  will  make  the 
payment  of  this  rent  a  condition  of  protection.  Thus  the  payment  of 
rent  would  become  an  essential  feature  in  the  contract  between  the  land- 
holder and  the  government, — in  other  words,  the  payment  of  rent  to  the 
people  as  a  whole  will  become  one  of  the  features  of  that  social  system  of 
an  intelligent  people  which  must  evolve  from  anarchy  by  the  process  of 
natural  selection.  Egoist. 

Under  the  influence  of  competition  the  best  and  cheapest 
protector,  like  the  best  and  cheapest  tailor,  would  doubtless 
get  the  greater  part  of  the  business.  It  is  conceivable  even 
that  he  might  get  the  whole  of  it.  But  if  he  should,  it  would 
be  by  his  virtue  as  a  protector,  not  by  his  power  as  a  tyrant. 
He  would  be  kept  at  his  best  by  the  possibility  of  competition 


LAND   A  N  1)  RENT. 


327 


and  the  fear  of  it;  and  the  source  of  power  would  always  re- 
main, not  with  him,  but  with  his  patrons,  who  would  exercise 
it,  not  by  voting  him  down  or  by  forcibly  putting  another  in 
his  place,  but  by  withdrawing  their  patronage.  Such  a  state 
of  things,  far  from  showing  the  impossibility  of  Anarchy, 
would  be  Anarchy  itself,  and  would  have  little  or  nothing  in 
common  with  what  now  goes  by  the  name  of  "  equitable  dem- 
ocratic government." 

If  "  it  can  be  shown  that  the  value  of  the  protection  to  the 
possession  of  land  equals  its  economic  rent,"  the  demonstra- 
tion will  be  interesting.  To  me  it  seems  that  the  measure  of 
such  value  must  often  include  many  other  factors  than 
economic  rent.  A  man  may  own  a  home  the  economic  rent 
of  which  is  zero,  but  to  which  he  is  deeply  attached  by  many 
tender  memories.  Is  the  value  of  protection  in  his  possession 
of  that  home  zero  ?  But  perhaps  Egoist  means  the  exchange 
value  of  protection.  If  so,  I  answer  that,  under  free  compe- 
tition, the  exchange  value  of  protection,  like  the  exchange 
value  of  everything  else,  would  be  its  cost,  which  might  in  any 
given  case  be  more  or  less  than  the  economic  rent.  The  con- 
dition of  receiving  protection  would  be  the  same  as  the  con- 
dition of  receiving  beefsteak, — namely,  ability  and  willingness 
to  pay  the  cost  thereof. 

If  I  am  right,  the  payment  of  rent,  then,  would  not  be  an 
essential  feature  in  the  contract  between  the  landholder  and 
the  protector.  It  is  conceivable,  however,  though  in  my  judg- 
ment unlikely,  that  it  might  be  found  an  advantageous  feature. 
If  so,  protectors  adopting  that  form  of  contract  would  distance 
their  competitors.  But  if  one  of  these  protectors  should  ever 
say  to  landholders  :  "  Sign  this  contract ;  if  you  do  not,  I  not 
only  will  refuse  you  protection,  but  I  will  myself  invade  you 
and  annually  confiscate  a  portion  of  your  earnings  equal  to 
the  economic  rent  of  your  land,"  I  incline  to  the  opinion  that 
"  intelligent  people"  would  sooner  or  later,  "  by  the  process  of 
natural  selection,"  evolve  into  Anarchy  by  rallying  around 
these  landholders  for  the  formation  of  a  new  social  and  protec- 
tive system,  which  would  subordinate  the  pooling  of  economic 
rents  to  the  security  of  each  individual  in  the  possession  of 
the  raw  materials  which  he  uses  and  the  disposition  of  the 
wealth  which  he  thereby  produces. 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


PROTECTION,  AND  ITS  RELATION  TO  RENT. 

[Liberty,  October  27,  1888.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

Referring  to  your  favored  reply  of  October  13,  I  fail  to  find  an  answer 
to  the  question  as  to  the  result  of  the  attempt  of  two  rival  protectors  to 
secure  to  different  persons  the  same  territory.  I  cannot  see  how,  under 
such  conditions,  a  physical  conflict  can  be  avoided,  (1)  nor  is  it  clear  why 
the  best  and  cheapest  protector  will  be  most  patronized  if  he  is  not  at  the 
same  time  the  strongest.  It  would  be  the  power  rather  than  the  quality 
of  protection  that  would  secure  patronage.  (2)  But  if  the  tyrant  by 
sophistry  could  convince  the  masses,  as  he  now  does,  that  his  policy  is 
to  their  benefit  and  could  obtain  their  support,  Anarchy  would  inevitably 
lead  to  despotism.  (3)  The  present  State,  to  my  mind,  is  indeed  the  nat- 
ural outgrowth  "of  Anarchy,  its  absurd  character  being  due  to  shortsighted 
intelligence  and  sustained  by  a  copious  amount  of  sophistry.  (4) 

My  remarks  about  equity  do  certainly  not  refer  to  what  is  now  termed 
equity,  but  to  the  genuine  article. 

The  statement  that  the  value  of  the  protection  in  the  possession  of  land 
equals  its  economic  rent  I  consider  true,  even  if  there  is  no  direct  labor 
of  protection  involved. 

By  rent  I  mean,  of  course,  that  which  Ricardo  terms  rent, — i.  e.,  the  dif- 
ference between  the  productivity  of  a  particular  piece  of  land  and  the 
marginal  productivity;  the  excess  of  the  value  of  a  product  over  the  value 
of  the  labor  producing  it. 

The  observation  regarding  the  sentimental  value  of  protection  is  cer- 
tainly out  of  place,  since  in  economic  discussion  none  other  than  exchange 
value  can  be  considered.  (5)  Even  in  a  society  in  which  the  policeman  is 
superfluous,  the  value  of  protection  in  the  possession  of  land  can  be  shown 
to  be  equal  to  its  economic  rent.  The  right  of  possession  to  land  consists 
in  an  agreement  of  the  people  to  forego  the  special  advantages  which  the 
use  of  such  lands  affords  to  an  undisturbed  possessor.  It  represents  a 
giving-up,  by  the  community,  of  that  which  they  could  obtain  for  them- 
selves,— the  cost  of  the  community  being  certainly  that  which  they  have 
relinquished,  and  equals  in  value  the  special  advantage  which  is  the  cause 
of  rent.  In  view  of  this,  it  seems  to  me  that  affording  this  protection  is 
to  the  community  an  expense  equal  to  the  rent.  (6)  Moreover,  assuming 
that  owing  to  the  favorable  locality  or  fertility  (eliminating  a  difference 
of  skill  or  other  merit)  the  production  on  that  land  of  one  year's  labor  (say 
three  hundred  days)  will  exchange  for  five  hundred  days'  of  other  men's 
labor  who  must  work  without  such  special  advantages,  it  will  be  difficult 
to  show  that  the  occupier  of  that  land  is  equitably  entitled  to  this  ex- 
change value.  (7)  Those  who  buy  his  products  really  produce  and  act- 
ually pay  the  excess  of  two  hundred  days'  labor.  Are  they  not  entitled 
to  a  distribution  of  this  rent  which  they,  in  the  course  of  exchange,  have 
paid  to  him  ?  If  the  people  of  a  community  are  endowed  with  intelligent 
egoism,  they  cannot  give  that  protection  to  any  one  who  is  not  willing  to 
pay  the  rent  ;  and,  if  the  occupier  refuses  to  do  so,  the  right  of  occupa- 
tion will  simply  be  given  to  one  who  is  willing.  (8)  This  is  no  invasion, 
but  a  bargain.  (9)  What  right  has  he  to  expect  the  community  to  secure 
him  an  opportunity  to  make  inequitable  exchanges,  (10)  when  others  are 
willing  to  pay  the  full  value  of  the  advantages  offered,  whereby  equity 


Land  and  rent. 


329 


is  established?  I  can  conceive  of  no  other  individualistic  measure  (n) 
oy  which  the  cost  principle  of  value  can  be  realized  in  those  cases  in 
which  the  cost  of  producing  equal  quantities  is  different  on  account  of 
a  variation  of  local  opportunities  than  to  add  rent  to  the  cost  where  the 
immediate  cost  is  naturally  less  than  the  value  of  the  product.  All  men 
are  then  upon  an  equitable  plane  regarding  the  gifts  of  nature;  and  none 
can,  as  none  should  in  this  respect,  have  an  advantage  that  is  not  sim- 
ilarly enjoyed  by  all.  (12)  Egoist. 

(1)  A  physical  conflict  may  or  may  not  occur.  The  prob- 
ability of  it  is  inversely  proportional  to  the  amount  of  educa- 
tion in  economics  and  social  science  acquired  by  the  people 
prior  to  the  inauguration  of  the  conditions  supposed.  If  gov- 
ernment should  be  abruptly  and  entirely  abolished  to-morrow, 
there  would  probably  ensue  a  series  of  physical  conflicts  about 
land  and  many  other  things,  ending  in  reaction  and  a  revival 
of  the  old  tyranny.  But  if  the  abolition  of  government  shall 
take  place  gradually,  beginning  with  the  downfall  of  the  money 
and  land  monopolies  and  extending  thence  into  one  field  after 
another,  it  will  be  accompanied  by  such  a  constant  acquisition 
and  steady  spreading  of  social  truth  that,  when  the  time  shall 
come  to  apply  the  voluntary  principle  in  the  supply  of  police 
protection,  the  people  will  rally  as  promptly  and  universally  to 
the  support  of  the  protector  who  acts  most  nearly  in  accord- 
ance with  the  principles  of  social  science  as  they  now  rally  to 
the  side  of  the  assaulted  man  against  his  would-be  murderer. 
In  that  case  no  serious  conflict  can  arise. 

(2)  Egoist  neglects  to  consider  my  statement  in  reply  to  him 
in  the  last  issue  of  Liberty,  to  the  effect  that  the  source  of  the 
protector's  power  lies  precisely  in  the  patronage.  The  pro- 
tector who  is  most  patronized  will,  therefore,  be  the  strongest; 
and  the  people  will  endow  with  their  power  the  protector 
who  is  best  fitted  to  use  it  in  the  administration  of  justice. 

(3)  That  is  to  say,  if  the  masses,  or  any  large  section  of 
them,  after  having  come  to  an  understanding  and  acceptance 
of  Anarchism,  should  then  be  induced  by  the  sophistry  of 
tyrants  to  reject  it  again,  despotism  would  result.  This  is 
perfectly  true.  No  Anarchist  ever  dreamed  of  denying  it. 
Indeed,  the  Anarchist's  only  hope  lies  in  his  confidence  that 
people  who  have  once  intelligently  accepted  his  principle  will 
"  stay  put." 

(4)  The  present  State  cannot  be  an  outgrowth  of  Anarchy, 
because  Anarchy,  in  the  philosophic  sense  of  the  word,  has 
never  existed.  For  Anarchy,  after  all,  means  something  more 
than  the  possession  of  liberty.  Just  as  Ruskin  defines  wealth 
as  "  the  possession  of  the  valuable  by  the  valiant,"  so  Anarchy 
may  be  defined  as  the  possession  of  liberty  by  libertarians, — 


33° 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


that  is,  by  those  who  know  what  liberty  means.  The  barbaric 
[liberty  out  of  which  the  present  State  developed  was  not 
Anarchy  in  this  sense  at  all,  for  those  who  possessed  it  had  not 
the  slightest  conception  of  its  blessings  or  of  the  line  that 
divides  it  from  tyranny. 

(5)  Nothing  can  have  value  in  the  absence  of  demand  for 
it.  Therefore  the  basis  of  the  demand  cannot  be  irrelevant  in 
considering  value.  Now,  it  is  manifest  that  the  demand  for 
protection  in  the  possession  of  land  does  not  rest  solely  upon 
excess  of  fertility  or  commercial  advantage  of  situation.  On 
the  contrary,  it  rests,  in  an  ever-rising  degree  and  among  an 
ever-increasing  proportion  of  the  people,  upon  the  love  of 
security  and  peace,  the  love  of  home,  the  love  of  beautiful 
scenery,  and  many  other  wholly  sentimental  motives.  Inas- 
much, then,  as  the  strength  of  some  of  the  motives  for  the  de- 
mand of  protection  bears  often  no  relation  to  economic  rent, 
the  value  of  such  protection  is  not  necessarily  equal  to  eco- 
nomic rent.    Which  is  the  contrary  of  Egoist's  proposition. 

(6)  All  this  legitimately  follows,  once  having  admitted  Ego- 
ist's definition  of  the  right  of  possession  of  land.  But  that 
definition  rests  on  an  assumption  which  Anarchists  deny, — 
namely,  that  there  is  an  entity  known  as  the  community  which 
is  the  rightful  owner  of  all  land.  Here  we  touch  the  central 
point  of  the  discussion.  Here  I  take  issue  with  Egoist,  and 
maintain  that  "  the  community"  is  a  nonentity,  that  it  has  no 
existence,  and  that  what  is  called  the  community  is  simply  a 
combination  of  individuals  having  no  prerogatives  beyond 
those  of  the  individuals  themselves.  This  combination  of  in- 
dividuals has  no  better  title  to  the  land  than  any  single  indi- 
vidual outside  of  it  ;  and  the  argument  which  Egoist  uses  in 
behalf  of  the  community  this  outside  individual,  if  he  but  had 
the  strength  to  back  it  up,  might  cite  with  equal  propriety  in 
his  own  behalf.  He  might  say  :  "  The  right  of  possession  of 
land  consists  in  an  agreement  on  my  part  to  forego  the  special 
advantages  which  the  use  of  such  land  affords  to  an  undis- 
turbed possessor.  It  represents  a  giving-up,  by  me,  of  that 
which  I  could  obtain  for  myself, — the  cost  to  me  being  cer- 
tainly that  which  I  have  relinquished,  and  equals  in  value  the 
special  advantage  which  is  the  cause  of  rent.  In  view  of  this, 
it  seems  to  me  that  affording  this  protection  is  to  me  an  ex- 
pense equal  to  the  rent."  And  thereupon  he  might  proceed 
to  collect  this  rent  from  the  community  as  compensation  for 
the  protection  which  he  afforded  it  in  allowing  it  to  occupy 
the  land.  But  in  his  case  the  supposed  condition  is  lacking ; 
he  has  not  the  strength  necessary  to  enforce  such  an  argu- 


LAND   AND  KENT. 


331 


ment  as  this.  The  community,  or  combination  of  individuals, 
has  this  strength.  Its  only  superiority  to  the  single  individual, 
then,  in  relation  to  the  land,  consists  in  the  right  of  the  strong- 
est,— a  perfectly  valid  right,  I  admit,  but  one  which,  if  exer- 
cised, leads  to  serious  results.  If  the  community  proposes 
to  exercise  its  right  of  the  strongest,  why  stop  with  the  col- 
lection of  economic  rent  ?  Why  not  make  the  individual  its 
slave  outright  ?  Why  not  strip  him  of  everything  but  the 
bare  necessities  of  life  ?  Why  recognize  him  at  all,  in  any 
way,  except  as  a  tool  to  be  used  in  the  interest  of  the  com- 
munity ?  In  a  word,  why  not  do  precisely  what  capitalism 
is  doing  now,  or  else  what  State  Socialism  proposes  to  do 
when  it  gets  control  of  affairs  ?  But  if  the  community  does 
not  propose  to  go  to  this  extreme  ;  if  it  proposes  to  recognize 
the  individual  and  treat  with  him, — then  it  must  forego  en- 
tirely its  right  of  the  strongest,  and  be  ready  to  contract  on  a 
basis  of  equality  of  rights,  by  which  the  individual's  title  to 
the  land  he  uses  and  to  what  he  gets  out  of  it  shall  be  held 
valid  as  against  the  world.  Then,  if  the  individual  consents 
to  pool  his  rent  with  others,  well  and  good  ;  but,  if  not— 
why,  then,  he  must  be  left  alone.  And  it  will  not  do  for  the 
community  to  turn  upon  him  and  demand  the  economic  rent 
of  his  land  as  compensation  for  the  "  protection  "  which  it 
affords  him  in  thus  letting  him  alone.  As  well  might  the 
burglar  say  to  the  householder  :  "  Here,  I  can,  if  I  choose, 
enter  your  house  one  of  these  fine  nights  and  carry  off  your 
valuables  ;  I  therefore  demand  that  you  immediately  hand 
them  over  to  me  as  compensation  for  the  sacrifice  which  I 
make  and  the  protection  which  I  afford  you  in  not  doing  so." 

(7)  Precisely  as  difficult  as  it  would  be  to  show  that  the  man 
of  superior  skill  (native,  not  acquired)  who  produces  in  the 
ratio  of  five  hundred  to  another's  three  hundred  is  equitably 
entitled  to  this  surplus  exchange  value.  There  is  no  more 
reason  why  we  should  pool  the  results  of  our  lands  than  the 
results  of  our  hands.  And  to  compel  such  pooling  is  as  meddle- 
some and  tyrannical  in  one  case  as  in  the  other.  That  school 
of  Socialistic  economists  which  carries  Henry  George's  idea  to 
its  conclusions,  confiscating  not  only  rent  but  interest  and 
profit  and  equalizing  wages, — a  school  of  which  G.  Bernard 
Shaw  may  be  taken  as  a  typical  representative, — is  more  logical 
than  the  school  to  which  Mr.  George  and  Egoist  belong,  be- 
cause it  completes  the  application  of  the  tyrannical  principle. 

(8)  Here  again  we  have  the  assumption  of  the  community's 
superior  title  to  the  land. 


332 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


(9)  Yes,  the  bargain  of  the  highwayman  to  deliver  another's 
goods. 

(10)  The  cultivator  of  land  who  does  not  ask  protection 
does  not  expect  the  community  to  secure  him  the  opportunity 
referred  to.  He  simply  expects  the  community  not  to  deprive 
him  of  this  opportunity.  He  does  not  say  to  the  community  : 
"  Here  !  an  invader  is  trying  to  oust  me  from  my  land  ;  come 
and  help  me  to  drive  him  off."  He  says  to  the  community:  "  My 
right  to  this  land  is  as  good  as  yours.  In  fact  it  is  better,  for 
I  am  already  occupying  and  cultivating  it.  I  demand  of  you 
simply  that  you  shall  not  disturb  me.  If  you  impose  certain 
burdens  upon  me  by  threatening  me  with  dispossession,  I, 
being  weaker  than  you,  must  of  course  submit  temporarily. 
But  in  the  mean  time  I  shall  teach  the  principle  of  liberty  to 
the  individuals  of  which  you  are  composed,  and  by  and  by, 
when  they  see  that  you  are  oppressing  me,  they  will  espouse 
my  cause,  and  your  tyrannical  yoke  will  speedily  be  lifted  from 
my  neck." 

(11)  toother!  Is  Egoist's  measure  individualistic,  then  ? 
I  have  already  pointed  out  its  communistic  and  authoritarian 
character. 

(12)  If  the  cost  principle  of  value  cannot  be  realized  other- 
wise than  by  compulsion,  then  it  had  better  not  be  realized. 
For  my  part,  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  possible  or  highly 
important  to  realize  it  absolutely  and  completely.  But  it  is  both 
possible  and  highly  important  to  effect  its  approximate  realiza- 
tion. So  much  can  be  effected  without  compulsion, — in  fact, 
can  only  be  effected  by  at  least  partial  abolition  of  compulsion, 
—and  so  much  will  be  sufficient.  By  far  the  larger  part  of  the 
violations  of  the  cost  principle — probably  nine-tenths — result 
from  artificial,  law-made  inequalities  ;  only  a  small  portion 
arise  from  natural  inequalities.  Abolish  the  artificial  monopo- 
lies of  money  and  land,  and  interest,  profit,  and  the  rent  of 
buildings  will  almost  entirely  disappear  ;  ground  rents  will 
no  longer  flow  into  a  few  hands  ;  and  practically  the  only 
inequality  remaining  will  be  the  slight  disparity  of  products 
due  to  superiority  of  soil  and  skill.  Even  this  disparity  will 
soon  develop  a  tendency  to  decrease.  Under  the  new  eco- 
nomic conditions  and  enlarged  opportunities  resulting  from 
freedom  of  credit  and  land  classes  will  tend  to  disappear; 
great  capacities  will  not  be  developed  in  a  few  at  the  expense 
of  stunting  those  of  the  many ;  talents  will  approximate 
towards  equality,  though  their  variety  will  be  greater  than 
ever  ;  freedom  of  locomotion  will  be  vastly  increased  ;  the 
toilers  will  no  longer  be  anchored  in  such  large  numbers  in  the 


LA ND   AND   REN T. 


333 


present  commercial  centres,  and  thus  made  subservient  to  the 
city  landlords;  territories  and  resources  never  before  utilized 
will  become  easy  of  access  and  development;  and  under  all 
these  influences  the  disparity  above  mentioned  will  decrease  to 
a  minimum.  Probably  it  will  never  disappear  entirely;  on  the 
other  hand,  it  can  never  become  intolerable.  It  must  always 
remain  a  comparatively  trivial  consideration,  certainly  never 
to  be  weighed  for  a  moment  in  the  same  scale  with  liberty. 


LIBERTY  AND  LAND. 

[Liberty,  December  15,  1888.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

Encouraged  by  the  prompt  and  considerate  attention  given  to  my 
letter  (in  your  issue  of  October  27),  I  beg  leave  to  continue  the  discussion, 
especially  since  some  of  your  arguments  are  not  at  all  clear  to  me. 

You  say  that  my  definition  of  the  right  of  possession  of  land  rests  on 
an  assumption  "  that  there  is  an  entity  known  as  the  community,  which  is 
the  rightful  owner  of  all  land."  I  do  not  understand  what  you  mean  by 
"  rightful  ownership."  Ownership  outside  of  a  combination  of  individuals 
is  to  me  as  inconceivable  as  "distance"  would  be  were  there  but  one 
grain  of  matter  in  the  universe.  And  regarding  the  community  formed 
by  a  compact  entered  into  or  sanctioned  by  a  dynamic  majority  of  indi- 
viduals as  an  entity,  I  can  conceive  only  the  physical  relation  of  "  pos- 
session "  and  that  of  "  ability  to  maintain  it  "  ;  but  "  ownership  "  I  can 
recognize  only  as  the  result  of  this  ability  of  the  community,  applied  for  the 
benefit  of  individuals.  Hence  I  deny  that  my  definition  is  based  upon 
the  premise  stated  by  you,  unless  you  have  a  conception  of  the  term 
"  ownership  "  unknown  to  me.  (1)  If  I  had  "  the  strength  to  back  it  up," 
all  land  would  be  mine,  and  egoism  would  prompt  me  to  dominate  over 
mankind  as  naturally  as  mankind  now  dominates  over  the  animal  king- 
dom. (2)  But  since  my  egoism  is  not  coupled  with  such  a  power,  sub- 
mission to  the  stronger  is  a  necessity  which  may  be  good  or  evil.  "Com- 
munity "  I  only  mention  in.  recognition  of  its  supreme  power.  It  can 
have  and  need  have  no  title  to  the  land  while  there  is  no  other  power 
capable  of  successfully  disputing  its  possession ,  a  title  being  nothing  else 
than  an  effective  promise  of  those  who  wield  the  supreme  power.  Nor 
can  I  agree  that  the  right  of  the  strongest  will  lead  to  serious  results, 
except  when  applied  to  create  an  inequitable  relation  between  individ- 
uals ;  and  for  the  same  reason  that  I  advocate  the  distribution  of  rent  as 
conducive  to  the  establishment  of  an  equilibrium,  I  do  object  to  the 
collection  of  any  other  tribute.  (3)  Suppose  I  were  to  discover  a  gold 
mine  that  would  enable  me  to  command,  by  one  hour's  work,  one  year's 
labor  of  other  men:  a  refusal  to  pool  the  rent  with  others  with  the  expecta- 
tion to  be  let  alone  in  the  exclusive  enjoyment  of  this  mine  would  imply 
that  I  consider  all  others  to  be  devoid  of  even  a  trace  of  egoism,  which 
my  experience  forbids.  (4)  There  is  one  vital  difference  between  the  ad- 
vantage which  a  man  possesses  by  reason  of  superior  skill  and  that  due 


334 


INSTEAD  OK   A  BOOK. 


to  the  possession  of  valuable  local  opportunities  :  the  one  is  inseparably 
attached  to  the  individual;  the  other  can  be  transferred  by  a  mere  transfer 
of  the  possession  of  the  territory.  The  former  will  therefore  always  re- 
main the  individual's;  the  disposition  of  the  latter  will  invariably  be  con- 
trolled by  the  strongest.  (5) 

If  you  can  convince  the  majority  that  occupation  is  the  proper  title  for 
the  ownership  of  land,  your  measure  will  be  adopted.  But  local  oppor- 
tunities being  of  different  values  and  the  most  valuable  limited,  those 
who  are  less  liberally  provided  by  the  existing  social  conditions  will  covet 
the  superior  advantages  possessed  by  others.  This  dissatisfaction,  this 
germ  of  social  disturbances  and  revolutions,  will  grow  as  the  existing 
valuable  opportunities  are  more  and  more  appropriated  and  those  who 
must  do  without  them  increase  in  numbers.  Under  such  conditions  it 
will  be  easy  to  convince  the  masses  that,  by  giving  the  local  opportunities 
to  the  highest  bidder  and  equitably  distributing  the  rent,  all  will  feel  that 
they  have  an  equal  share  in  the  blessings  of  social  peace  and  all  egoism 
in  that  direction  is  as  fully  satisfied  as  any  intelligent  man  can  expect.  (6) 

As  to  the  question  of  how  to  accomplish  the  end  and  what  to  do  first, 
I  agree  with  you  when  you  wish  the  first  blow  directed  against  the  monop- 
olization of  the  medium  of  exchange  ;  I  only  hold  that,  if  the  social 
state  following  would  not  imply  a  nationalization  of  the  rent,  the  measure 
would  be  incomplete.  (7) 

From  all  appearances  the  differences  between  us  is  this  :  You  consider 
that  the  rule  of  the  superior  will  invariably  lead  to  serious  results,  and  in 
this  respect  you  place  yourself  in  opposition  to  what  must  naturally 
result  from  an  association  of  egoists,  i.e.,  the  rule  of  the  superior,  while 
I  hold  that  superior  ability  will  always  rule  and  that  this  rule  will  be 
beneficial  if  administered  so  that  no  individual  has  any  reasonable  cause 
for  complaint,  which  implies  that  all  have  an  equal  share  in  the  transfer- 
able opportunities.  I  admit  that  what  I  consider  a  reasonable  cause  may 
not  be  so  considered  by  others  :  the  decision  must  be  left  to  the  intelli- 
gence of  the  people,  as  there  is  no  other  tribunal.  (8) 

Egoist. 

(1)  It  was  only  because  I  conceived  it  out  of  the  question 
that  Egoist,  in  maintaining  that  "  the  value  of  protection  in 
the  possession  of  land  is  equal  to  its  economic  rent,"  could 
be  discussing  value  without  regard  to  the  law  of  equal 
liberty  as  a  prior  condition,  or  soberly  advocating  the  exercise 
of  the  right  of  might  regardless  of  equity,  that  I  interpreted 
his  words  as  implying  a  superiority  in  equity  in  the  com- 
munity's title  to  land  over  that  of  the  individual, — a  superiority 
other  than  that  of  might  ;  a  superiority,  in  short,  other  than 
that  by  which  the  highwayman  relieves  the  traveller  of  his 
goods.  I  was  bound  to  suppose  (and  later  statements  in  his 
present  letter  seem  to  strengthen  the  supposition)  that  he 
looked  upon  the  "  giving  up,  by  the  community,"  of  its  right 
to  land  as  the  giving  up  of  a  superior  equitable  right ;  for 
otherwise,  in  demanding  value  in  return  for  this  sacrifice,  he 
would  be  compelled  in  logic  to  demand,  on  behalf  of  a  burglar, 
value  in  return  for  the  sacrifice  made  in  declining  to  carry  off 


LAND   AND  RENT. 


335 


a  householder's  wealth  by  stealth.  But  Egoist  repudiates 
this  supposition  (though  he  does  not  follow  the  logic  of  his 
repudiation),  and  I  must  take  him  at  his  word.  He  thus  lays 
himself  open  to  a  retort  which  I  could  not  otherwise  have 
made.  In  his  previous  letter  he  criticised  me  for  making 
sentiment  a  factor  in  the  estimation  of  value.  Whether  or  not 
this  was  a  transgression,  on  my  part,  of  the  limits  of  economic 
discussion,  he  certainly  has  transgressed  them  much  more 
seriously  in  making  force  such  a  factor.  Exchange  implies 
liberty  ;  where  there  is  no  liberty  there  is  no  exchange,  but 
only  robbery  ;  and  robbery  is  foreign  to  political  economy. 
At  least  one  point,  however,  is  gained.  Between  Egoist  and 
myself  all  question  of  any  superior  equitable  right  of  the  com- 
munity is  put  aside  forever.  Equity  not  considered,  we  agree 
that  the  land  belongs  to  the  man  or  body  of  men  strong 
enough  to  hold  it.  And  for  all  practical  purposes  his  definition 
of  "ownership"  suits  me,  though  I  view  ownership  less  as  the 
"result  cf  the  ability  of  the  community  to  maintain  posses- 
sion "  and  an  application  of  this  result  "  for  the  benefit  of 
individuals,"  than  as  a  result  of  the  inability  of  the  community 
to  maintain  itself  in  peace  and  security  otherwise  than  by  the 
recognition  of  only  such  relations  between  man  and  wealth  as 
are  in  harmony  with  the  law  of  equal  liberty.  In  other  words, 
ownership  arises  not  from  superiority  of  the  community  to  the 
individual,  but  from  the  inferiority  of  the  community  to  the 
facts  and  powers  of  nature. 

(2)  This  would  depend  upon  whether  such  domination 
would  prove  profitable  or  disastrous  to  Egoist.  I  contend 
that  it  would  prove  disastrous,  and  that  experience  would  lead 
him  to  abandon  such  a  policy  if  foresight  should  not  prevent 
him  from  adopting  it. 

(3)  Here  we  have  an  acknowledgment  of  a  principle  of 
equity  and  a  contemplation  of  its  observance  by  the  mighty, 
which  goes  to  sustain  my  original  supposition,  despite  Ego- 
ist's protest.  It  implies  an  abandonment  by  the  mighty  of 
their  right  of  domination  and  a  willingness  to  contract  with  the 
weak.  Now,  I  agree  that  the  contracts  thus  entered  into  will 
not  lead  to  serious  results,  unless  they  create  inequitable  rela- 
tions between  individuals.  But  the  first  of  all  equities  is  not 
equality  of  material  well-being,  but  equality  of  liberty  ;  and  if 
the  contract  places  the  former  equality  before  the  latter,  it  will 
lead  to  serious  results,  for  it  logically  necessitates  the  arbitrary 
levelling  of  all  material  inequalities,  whether  these  arise  from 
differences  of  s6il  or  differences  of  skill.  To  directly  enforce 
equality  of  material  well-being  is  meddlesome,  invasive,  and 


336  INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 

offensive,  but  to  directly  enforce  equality  of  liberty  is  simply 
protective  and  defensive.  The  latter  is  negative,  and  aims 
only  to  prevent  the  establishment  of  artificial  inequalities  ; 
the  former  is  positive,  and  aims  at  direct  and  active  abolition 
of  natural  inequalities.  If  the  former  is  the  true  policy,  then 
it  is  as  equitable  to  enforce  the  pooling  of  interest,  profit,  and 
wages  as  the  pooling  of  rent.  If  the  latter  is  the  true  policy, 
we  have  only  to  see  to  it  that  no  artificial  barriers  against  indi- 
vidual initiative  are  constructed.  Under  such  conditions,  if 
the  natural  inequalities  tend  to  disappear,  as  they  surely  will, 
then  so  much  the  better. 

(4)  Not  at  all.  It  would  only  imply  that  Egoist  considers 
others  wise  enough  to  see  that,  from  the  standpoint  of  self- 
interest,  even  so  great  a  natural  inequality  as  is  here  supposed 
is  preferable  to  an  arbitrary  distribution  of  the  products  of 
labor. 

(5)  In  speaking  of  skill  as  "  inseparably  attached  to  the 
individual,"  Egoist  surely  does  not  mean  to  argue  the  impossi- 
bility of  seizing  and  distributing  the  results  of  skill,  for  that 
would  be  a  ridiculous  contention.  Then  he  can  only  mean 
that  there  is  something  sacred  about  the  individual  which  the 
mighty  are  bound  to  respect.  But  this  again  is  inconsistent 
with  his  theory  of  the  right  of  might.  If  the  strongest  is  to 
exercise  his  might,  then  he  need  stop  at  nothing  but  the  im- 
possible ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  he  contracts  with  the  weaker 
on  a  basis  of  equal  liberty,  then  both  strong  and  weak  must 
be  left  secure  in  their  possession  of  the  products  of  their 
labor,  whether  aided  by  superior  skill  or  superior  soil. 

(6)  This  is  not  true,  unless  Malthusianism  is  true  ;  and,  if 
Malthusianism  is  true,  it  is 'as  true  after  the  pooling  of  rent  as 
before.  If  the  encroachment  of  population  over  the  limit  of 
the  earth's  capacity  is  inevitable,  then  there  is  no  solution  of 
the  social  problem.  Pooling  the  rent  or  organizing  credit 
would  only  postpone  the  catastrophe.  Sooner  or  later  the 
masses  would  find  nothing  to  share  but  the  curses  of  war  rather 
than  the  "  blessings  of  peace,"  and  at  that  stage  it  would  mat- 
ter but  little  to  them  whether  they  shared  equally  or  unequally. 

(7)  And  I  only  hold  that,  if  in  that  case  rent  were  to  be 
nationalized  by  force,  liberty  would  be  incomplete  ;  and  liberty 
must  be  complete,  whatever  happens. 

(8)  No,  I  too  hold  that  superiority  will  always  rule  ;  and  it 
is  only  when  real  superiority  is  known  and  recognized  as  such, 
and  therefore  allowed  to  have  its  perfect  work  unresisted  and 
unimpeded,  that  the  minimum  of  evil  will  result.  The  really 
serious  results  are  those  that  follow  the  attempts  of  inferiority, 


LAND   AND  RENT. 


337 


mistaking  itself  for  superiority,  to  fly  in  the  face  of  the  real 
article.  In  other  words,  when  individuals  or  majorities,  seeing 
that  they  are  stronger  for  the  time  being  than  other  individuals 
or  minorities,  suppose  that  they  are  therefore  stronger  than 
natural  social  laws  and  act  in  violation  of  them,  disaster  is 
sure  to  follow.  These  laws  are  the  really  mighty,  and  they  will 
always  prevail.  The  first  of  them  is  the  law  of  equal  liberty. 
It  is  by  the  observance  of  this  law,  I  am  persuaded,  rather  than 
by  "an  equal  share  in  the  transferable  opportunities,"  that  the 
ultimate  "  intelligence  of  the  people  "  will  remove  "  every  rea- 
sonable cause  of  complaint." 


RENT,  AND  ITS  COLLECTION  BY  FORCE. 

[Liberty,  January  19,  1889.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

I  must  confess  that  I  may  not  fully  grasp  what  its  advocates  exactly 
mean  by  Anarchism.  Referring  to  the  reply  to  my  letter,  in  the  issue  of 
December  15,  I  cannot  harmonize  the  sentiments  of  an  opponent  of  even 
a  temporary  monopoly  of  inventors  and  authors  with  the  defence  of  an 
indefinite  monopoly  of  the  discoverer  of  a  gold  mine.  Moreover,  the 
reference  to  the  "  law  of  equal  liberty  "  appears  to  me  inconsistent  with 
your  standpoint.  If  I  understand  this  law,  it  can  be  thus  expressed  : 
Given  a  community  of  intelligent  beings,  who  wish  to  live  in  peace  and 
enjoy  a  maximum  of  happiness,  what  must  they  do  to  attain  this  result  ? 
Proposition  :  They  must  mutually  combine  and  form  such  an  agreement 
as  will  secure  equal  freedom  to  all  ;  and  if  any  one  takes  liberties  at  the 
expense  of  others,  he  must  be  restrained,  even  by  force,  if  necessary. 

This,  however,  appears  to  me  a  sound  democratic  doctrine  and  a  repu- 
diation of  the  doctrine  of  non-interference.  Without  a  forcible  measure 
against  transgressors,  equal  freedom  is  unattainable.  Force,  therefore, 
appears  to  be  a  most  important  factor  in  political  economy,  the  creator 
of  all  rights.  Now,  in  respect  to  rent,  I  would  advocate  compulsion 
against  those  only  who  violate  the  law  of  equal  freedom  in  relation  to 
local  opportunities.  Surely,  if  I  had  discovered  a  gold  mine,  unless  I 
knew  that  the  supreme  power  of  society  would  protect  me  uncondition- 
ally in  the  sole  possession,  I  would  willingly  give  the  economic  rent,  in 
order  to  prevent  others,  less  blessed  in  the  possession  of  natural  oppor- 
tunities, from  doing  that  which  their  egoism  would  naturally  prompt  them 
to  do.  This  you  appear  to  recognize  in  your  answer.  (2)  Only  those 
who  fail  to  see  that  peaceful  enjoyment  of  man's  labor  depends  upon  so- 
cial equality  will  expect  to  occupy  land  free,  for  the  possession  of  which 
others  are  willing  to  give  a  consideration,  and  they  must  suffer  the  nat- 
ural consequences,  either  by  the  invasion  of  the  State,  in  confiscating 
rent,  or  by  the  more  disastrous  interference  in  the  form  of  social  disturb- 
ances and  revolutions. 

You  are  correct  in  surmising  that  I  can  recognize  no  right  but  that  of 
might  or  ability,  not  referring,  of  course,  to  that  concept  of  the  ambiguous 


.338 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


term  "right"  which  is  synonymous  with  righteousness;  and  as  to  that 
might  which  results  from  the  social  compact,  I  must  accept  it  as  a  social 
right,  whether  or  not  it  is  in  harmony  with  my  notions  of  what  it  should 
be.  This,  however,  does  not  prevent  me  from  protesting  and  agitating 
against  any  of  the  laws  that  violate  equity,  being  convinced  that  inequitable 
laws  will  bring  disaster  unless  abolished  before  the  oppression  leads  to 
extreme  measures.  Enlightened  self-interest  is  no  doubt  the  most  forcible 
incentive  to  maintain  equity,  and  history  amply  proves  that  the  strong 
will  never  enter  into  a  compact  with  the  weak  unless  their  power  is 
threatened.  This  does  not  preclude  the  power  of  the  weaker  from  being 
reinforced  by  the  compassion  of  a  portion  of  the  strong  ;  sentiment,  in 
this  sense,  has  often  an  indirect  influence  in  the  distribution  of  the  social 
power.  Our  aim,  as  individualists,  should  therefore  be  to  so  direct  the 
power  of  the  State  that  it  will  maintain  the  equal  liberty  of  all. 

Egoist. 

I  find  so  little  attempt  to  meet  the  various  considerations 
which  I  have  advanced  that  I  have  not  much  to  add  by  way 
of  comment.  The  monopoly  of  mining  gold  at  a  particular 
point  exists  in  the  physical  constitution  of  things,  and  a  pool- 
ing of  the  results  thereof  (which  would  be  a  virtual  destruction 
of  the  monopoly)  can  only  be  directly  achieved  in  one  of  two 
ways, — mutual  agreement  or  an  invasion  of  liberty.  The 
monopoly  of  inventors  and  authors,  on  the  contrary,  has  no 
existence  at  all  except  by  mutual  agreement  or  an  invasion  of 
liberty.  It  seems  to  me  the  difference  between  the  two  is 
sufficiently  clear.  Egoist's  statement  of  the  law  of  equal  lib- 
erty is  satisfactory.  Standing  upon  it,  I  would  repel,  by  force 
if  necessary,  the  confiscator  of  rent  on  the  ground  that  he 
"  takes  a  liberty  at  the  expense  of  others."  I  have  no  objec- 
tion to  forcible  measures  against  transgressors,  but  the  ques- 
tion recurs  as  to  who  are  the  transgressors.  If  the  piece  of 
land  which  I  am  using  happens  to  be  better  than  my  neigh- 
bor's, I  do  not  consider  myself  a  transgressor  on  that  account  ; 
but  if  my  neighbor  digs  some  of  my  potatoes  and  carries 
them  off,  I  certainly  consider  him  a  transgressor,  even  though 
he  may  name  his  plunder  economic  rent.  But  Egoist,  view- 
ing this  case,  considers  me  the  transgressor  and  my  neighbor 
the  honest  man.  I  believe  that  education  in  liberty  will 
bring  people  to  my  view  rather  than  his.  If  it  doesn't,  I 
shall  have  to  succumb.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  Egoist  makes 
no  further  reference  to  my  argument  regarding  skill.  I  urged 
that  the  levelling  of  inequalities  in  land  logically  leads  to  the 
levelling  of  inequalities  in  skill.  Egoist  replied  that  skill  is  in- 
separably attached  to  the  individual,  while  land  is  not.  I 
rejoined  that  the  results  of  skill  are  not  inseparably  attached 
to  the  individual,  and  that  the  right  of  might  recognizes  noth- 
ing sacred  about  the  individual.    To  this  Egoist  makes  no 


LAND   AND  RENT. 


339 


reply.  Hence  my  argument  that  the  nationalization  of  rent 
logically  involves  the  most  complete  State  Socialism  and 
minute  regulation  of  the  individual  stands  unassailed. 


THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  RENT. 

{Liberty,  February  23,  1889.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

Before  replying  to  your  rejoinder  regarding  land  vs.  skill,  I  should  be 
pleased  to  know  whether  in  an  Anarchistic  state,  in  the  event  of  a  trans- 
gression of  equal  liberty,  the  injured  party  is  to  resent  the  act  according 
to  his  judgment  and  caprice,  or  is  repression  to  be  exercised  by  an  organ- 
ized power  according  to  rules  determined  by  previous  agreement  ?  In 
the  one  case  the  unavoidable  difference  of  opinions  must  be  a  source  of 
interminable  disturbances  ;  in  the  other,  we  have  the  operation  of  an  or- 
ganized society  with  laws  and  supreme  power,— in  fact,  a  political  State. 
If  an  agreement  exists,  who  is  to  execute  its  provisions  ?  And  if  some 
refuse  to  assist,  and  shirk  social  duties,  have  they  any  claim  to  the  assist- 
ance of  the  organization,  have  they  any  social  rights  ?  Until  we  have  a 
clear  understanding  on  these  points,  we  might  argue  forever  without  avail. 

Assuming  that  equal  liberty  can  be  attained  only  through  some  social 
compact,  I  fail  to  see  a  distinction  between  the  monopoly  of  a  gold-mine 
and  that  of  an  invention.  The  exclusive  possession  of  either  is  the  result 
of  a  social  compact,  all  persons  agreeing  not  to  exploit  the  natural  deposit 
of  the  precious  metal,  or  to  make  use  of  the  device  suggested  by  the  in- 
ventor. The  monopoly  of  a  gold-mine  can,  therefore,  have  no  existence 
except  by  mutual  agreement,  or  eventually  a  forcible  prevention  of  those 
who  claim  equal  liberty  and  attempt  to  extract  gold  from  the  same  de- 
posit. In  like  manner,  every  other  peaceable  enjoyment  of  a  natural  or 
local  advantage  is  a  result  of  mutual  agreement,  supported  by  the  power 
without  which  the  agreement  would  be  a  dead  letter.  The  occupier  of  su- 
perior land  or  location  is  therefore  indebted  to  society  for  the  right  of  un- 
disturbed possession,  and  a  society  of  egoists  will  natually  confer  this 
right  to  the  highest  bidder,  who  will  then,  as  now,  determine  the  rent. 
An  occupier  is  not  a  transgressor  of  equal  liberty  unless  he  claims  and  re- 
ceives this  right  without  giving  an  equivalent  in  return,  and  the  return  is 
equitable  if  it  equals  what  others  are  willing  to  give  for  the  same  right. 

If  we  keep  this  in  view,  I  may  be  able  to  more  intelligently  convey  my 
views  on  the  land  vs.  skill  question.  The  social  agreement,  and  not  the 
"physical  constitution  of  things,"  is  the  factor  determining  the  distribu- 
tion of  land,  while  the  distribution  of  skill  is  absolutely  independent  of 
this  agreement,  depending  upon  the  physical  and  mental  constitution  of 
men.  Some  men  may  have  reason  to  be  dissatisfied  with  the  distribution 
of  land,  knowing  that  it  can  be  changed,  while  a  dissatisfaction  with  the 
distribution  of  skill  is  like  the  crying  of  a  child  because  it  cannot  fly. 

Having  shown  that  a  vital  difference  exists  between  land  and  skill,  the 
distribution  of  the  one  being  due  to  human  laws,  that  of  the  other  to 
natural  laws,  I  wish  to  further  demonstrate  that  only  by  inequitable,  des- 
potic laws  can  an  equalization  of  natural  opportunities  be  prevented. 

In  a  state  of  liberty  rent  will  invariably  be  offered,  by  the  occupiers  of 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK, 


the  poorest  land  yet  needed,  for  the  possession  of  better  or  more  favor- 
ably located  land.  Shall  law  forbid  such  offers,  or  invalidate  contracts 
made  in  compliance  therewith,  incidentally  suppressing  competition  ;  shall 
it  permit  certain  individuals,  the  so-called  land-owners,  to  appropriate  this 
rent  ;  or  shall  society  so  distribute  it  that  no  citizen  has  any  reason  to 
complain  of  political  favoritism  ?  Is  there  a  fourth  possibility,  and  if 
not,  which  of  the  three  is  consistent  with  the  law  of  equal  freedom? 
Which  tend  to  establish  artificial  inequalities?  I  reiterate  my  convic- 
tion that  a  nationalization  of  rent  will  be  an  inevitable  result  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  equal  liberty. 

If  I  were  the  possessor  of  land  on  which  the  productivity  of  labor  ex- 
ceeds that  obtainable  on  land  held  by  others,  they  would  be  willing  to 
lease  my  land  and  pay  a  rent  of  nearly  the  excess  of  productivity.  But 
since  under  the  system  of  occupying  land-ownership  such  a  contract  must 
be  void,  I  shall  never  vacate  the  land,  whatever  inducements  should  be 
offered  me  ;  for,  upon  leaving  it,  I  and  my  descendants  would  forever  re- 
ceive for  the  same  efforts  a  less  return  than  if  I  had  retained  possession 
of  the  said  land.  If  for  any  reason  some  valuable  land  should  become  va- 
cant, the  number  of  applicants  would  naturally  be  very  large.  Each  would 
be  willing  to  give  very  nearly  the  annual  excess  of  productivity  afforded 
by  this  land,  in  his  competitive  attempt  to  outbid  others.  Who  shall  be- 
come the  future  occupier  ?  Shall  appointment  decide,  or  shall  the  land  be 
given  to  the  highest  bidder  ?  In  the  one  case,  favoritism  would  reign  ;  in 
the  other,  the  nationalization  of  rent  would  be  realized, which  you  condemn. 
Moreover,  if  production  is  carried  on  in  groups,  as  it  now  is,  who  is  the  legal 
occupier  of  the  land  ?  The  employer,  the  manager,  or  the  ensemble  of 
those  engaged  in  the  co-operative  work  ?  The  latter  appearing  the  only 
rational  answer,  it  is  natural  that  those  in  possession  of  the  lesser  oppor- 
tunities will  offer  themselves  to  the  favored  groups  for  wages  slightly 
greater  than  what  they  can  obtain  on  the  less  favorable  land  and  less  than 
the  members  of  the  favored  group  would  obtain  as  a  share  of  their  co-op- 
eration (which  is  only  another  form  of  an  offer  of  rent).  But  as  such  an 
accession  to  a  group  would  displace  some  of  those  previously  employed, 
pushing  them  upon  the  less  favorable  land,  such  competitive  applications 
will  be  resisted  to  the  utmost,  and  competition  would  be  harassed.  A  de- 
velopment of  a  class  distinction  could  not  be  avoided. 

The  relation  of  social  agreement  to  the  distribution  of  the  products  of 
skill  is  totally  different.  An  attempt  to  distribute  by  law  the  products  of 
labor  will  discourage  production,  diminish  happiness,  aud  reduce  the  power 
to  resist  adverse  influences,  enabling  those  people  to  survive  in  the  strug- 
gle for  existence  who  encourage  production  by  protecting  the  producer  in 
the  peaceable  enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  his  labor,  provided  he  pays  the 
value  of  that  protection.  Egoist. 

I  cannot  excuse  Egoist,  for  several  years  a  subscriber  for 
Liberty,  when  he  requires  me  to  answer  for  the  thousand-and- 
first  time  the  questions  which  he  puts  to  me  in  his  opening 
paragraph.  It  has  been  stated  and  restated  in  these  columns, 
until  I  have  grown  weary  of  the  reiteration,  that  voluntary  as- 
sociation for  the  purpose  of  preventing  transgression  of  equal 
liberty  will  be  perfectly  in  keeping  with  Anarchism,  and  will 
probably  exist  under  Anarchism  until  it  "  costs  more  than  it 
comes  to  ";  that  the  provisions  of  such  associations  will  be 


LAND  AND  RENT. 


executed  by  such  agents  as  it  may  select  in  accordance  with 
such  methods  as  it  may  prescribe,  provided  such  methods  do 
not  themselves  involve  a  transgression  of  the  liberty  of  the  in- 
nocent ;  that  such  association  will  restrain  only  the  criminal 
(meaning  by  criminal  the  transgressor  of  equal  liberty)  ;  that 
non-membership  and  non-support  of  it  is  not  a  criminal  act; 
but  that  such  a  course  nevertheless  deprives  the  non-member 
of  any  title  to  the  benefits  of  the  association,  except  such  as 
come  to  him  incidentally  and  unavoidably.  It  has  also  been 
repeatedly  affirmed  that,  in  proposing  to  abolish  the  State, 
the  Anarchists  expressly  exclude  from  their  definition  of  the 
State  such  associations  as  that  just  referred  to,  and  that  who- 
ever excludes  from  his  definition  and  championship  of  the 
State  everything  except  such  associations  has  no  quarrel  with 
the  Anarchists  beyond  a  verbal  one.  I  should  trust  that  the 
"  understanding  on  these  points  "  is  now  clear,  were  it  not 
that  experience  has  convinced  me  that  my  command  of  the 
English  language  is  not  adequate  to  the  construction  of  a 
foundation  for  such  trust. 

The  fact  that  Egoist  points  out  a  similarity  between  the 
monopoly  of  a  gold-mine  and  that  of  an  invention  by  no  means 
destroys  the  difference  between  them  which  I  pointed  out, — 
this  difference  being  that,  whereas  in  the  former  case  it  is  im- 
possible to  prevent  or  nullify  the  monopoly  without  restricting 
the  liberty  of  the  monopolist,  in  the  latter  it  is  impossible  to 
sustain  it  without  restricting  the  liberty  of  the  would-be  com- 
petitors. To  the  Anarchist,  who  believes  in  the  minimum  of 
restriction  upon  liberty,  this  difference  is  a  vital  one, — quite 
sufficient  to  warrant  him  in  refusing  to  prevent  the  one  while 
refusing  to  sustain  the  other. 

Egoist  says  that  "  an  occupier  is  not  a  transgressor  of  equal 
liberty  unless  he  claims  and  receives  the  right  of  undisturbed 
possession  without  giving  an  equivalent  in  return."  Anarch- 
ism holds,  on  the  contrary,  in  accordance  with  the  principles 
stated  at  the  outset  of  this  rejoinder,  that  an  occupier  is  not  a 
transgressor  even  if,  not  claiming  it  or  paying  for  it,  he  does 
receive  this  right.  This  question  of  "  Liberty  in  the  Inci- 
dental "  has  been  elaborately  and  clearly  discussed  in  these 
columns  within  a  few  months  by  J.  Wm.  Lloyd,  and  an  extract 
in  confirmation  of  his  position  has  been  reprinted  from  Hum- 
boldt.   I  refer  Egoist  to  those  articles. 

The  assertion  that  "  the  distribution  of  skill  is  absolutely 
independent  of  social  agreement  "  is  absolutely  erroneous.  In 
proof  of  this  I  need  only  call  attention  to  the  apprenticeship 
regulations  of  the  trade  unions  and  the  various  educational 


34* 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


systems  that  are  or  have  been  in  vogue,  not  only  as  evidence 
of  what  has  already  been  done  in  the  direction  of  controlling 
the  distribution  of  skill,  but  also  as  an  indication  of  what 
more  may  be  done  if  State  Socialism  ever  gets  a  chance  to  try 
upon  humanity  the  interesting  experiments  which  it  proposes. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  collection  of  rent  by  the  collectivity 
does  not  necessarily  affect  the  distribution  of  land.  Land 
titles  will  remain  unchanged  as  long  as  the  tax  (or  rent)  shall 
be  paid.  But  it  does  distribute  the  products  resulting  from 
differences  of  land,  and  it  is  likewise  possible  to  distribute  the 
products  resulting  from  differences  of  skill.  Now  until  this 
position  is  overthrown  (and  I  defy  any  one  to  successfully  dis- 
pute it),  it  is  senseless  to  liken  "dissatisfaction  with  the  dis- 
tribution of  skill  "  to  "  the  crying  of  a  child  because  it  cannot 
fly."  The  absurdity  of  this  analogy,  in  which  the  possibility 
of  distributing  products  is  ignored,  would  have  been  appa- 
rent if  it  had  been  immediately  followed  by  the  admission  of 
this  possibility  which  Egoist  places  several  paragraphs  further 
down.  To  be  sure,  he  declares  even  there  that  it  is  impossible, 
but  only  in  the  sense  in  which  Proudhon  declares  interest- 
bearing  property  impossible, —  that  of  producing  anti-social 
results  which  eventually  kill  it  or  compel  its  abandonment. 
I  contend  that  similarly  anti-social  results  will  follow  any  at- 
tempt to  distribute  by  law  the  products  arising  from  differences 
of  land  ;  and  I  ask,  as  I  have  asked  before  without  obtaining 
an  answer,  why  the  collectivity,  if  in  its  right  of  might  it  may 
see  fit  to  distribute  the  rent  of  land,  may  not  find  it  equally 
expedient  to  distribute  the  rent  of  skill ;  why  it  may  not  reduce 
all  differences  of  wealth  to  an  absolute  level ;  in  short,  why  it 
may  not  create  the  worst  and  most  complete  tyranny  the  world 
has  ever  known  ? 

In  regard  to  the  attitude  of  Anarchistic  associations  towards 
rent  and  its  collection,  I  would  say  that  they  might,  consist- 
ently with  the  law  of  equal  freedom,  except  from  their  juris- 
diction whatever  cases  or  forms  of  transgression  they  should 
not  think  it  expedient  to  attempt  to  prevent.  These  excep- 
tions would  probably  be  defined  in  their  constitutions.  The 
members  could,  if  they  saw  fit,  exempt  the  association  from 
enforcing  gambling  debts  or  rent  contracts.  On  the  other 
hand,  an  association  organized  on  a  different  basis  which  should 
enforce  such  debts  or  contracts  would  not  thereby  become  it- 
self a  transgressor.  But  any  association  would  be  a  trans- 
gressor which  should  attempt  to  prevent  the  fulfilment  of 
rent  contracts  or  to  confiscate  rent  and  distribute  it.  Of  the 
three  possibilities  specified  by  Egoist  the  third  is  the  only 


LAND   AND  RENT. 


343 


one  that  tends  to  establish  an  artificial  inequality  ;  and  that 
the  worst  of  all  inequalities,— the  inequality  of  liberty,  or 
perhaps  it  would  be  more  accurate  to  call  it  the  equality  of 
slavery.  The  first  or  second  would  at  the  worst  fail  to  entirely 
abolish  natural  inequalities. 

The  possibility  of  valuable  land  becoming  vacant  is  hardly 
worth  consideration.  Still,  if  any  occupant  of  valuable  land 
should  be  foolish  enough  to  quit  it  without  first  selling  it,  the 
estate  would  be  liable  to  seizure  by  the  first  comer,  who  would 
immediately  have  a  footing  similar  to  that  of  other  land- 
holders. If  this  be  favoritism,  I  can  only  say  that  the  world 
is  not  destined  to  see  the  time  when  some  things  will  not  go 
by  favor. . 

Egoist's  argument  that  free  competition  will  tend  to  dis- 
tribute rent  by  a  readjustment  of  wages  is  exactly  to  my  pur- 
pose. Have  I  not  told  him  from  the  start  that  Anarchists 
will  gladly  welcome  any  tendency  to  equality  through  liberty  ? 
But  Egoist  seems  to  object  to  reaching  equality  by  this  road. 
It  must  be  reached  by  law  or  not  at  all.  If  reached  by  com- 
petition, "  competition  would  be  harassed."  In  other  words, 
competition  would  harass  competition.  This  wears  the  aspect 
of  another  absurdity.  It  is  very  likely  that  competitors  would 
harass  competitors,  but  competition  without  harassed  com- 
petitors is  scarcely  thinkable.  It  is  even  not  improbable  that 
"class  distinctions"  would  be  developed,  as  Egoist  saysr 
Workers  would  find  the  places  which  their  capacities,  condi- 
tions, and  inclinations  qualify  them  to  fill,  and  would  thus  be 
classified,  or  divided  into  distinct  classes.  Does  Egoist  think 
that  in  such  an  event  life  would  not  be  worth  living  ?  Of 
course  the  words  "  harass  "  and  "  class  distinction  "  have  an 
ugly  sound,  and  competition  is  decidedly  more  attractive  when 
associated  instead  with  "excel"  and  "organization."  But 
Anarchists  never  recoil  from  disagreeable  terms.  Only  their 
opponents  are  to  be  frightened  by  words  and  phrases. 


ECONOMIC  RENT. 

[Liberty,  November  5.  1892.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  :    *  . 

I  have  often  seen  it  claimed  that  under  the  Anarchistic  organization 
of  society  economic  rent  would  disappear,  or  be  reduced  to  an  insignifi- 
cant amount.  But  I  have  never  yet  been  satisfied  with  any  explanation 
of  the  way  in  which  this  is  to  be  brought  about. 


344 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


Some  speak  as  if  the  abolition  of  rent  were  to  be  an  immediate  result 
of  the  abolition  of  interest,  apparently  taking  the  ground  that  rent  is  a 
product  of  the  selling  price  of  land  and  the  interest  of  money.  But  ac- 
cording to  the  accepted  theory  of  economists  (the  only  one  that  I  have 
learned  to  understand),  rent  is  the  independent  factor,  and  the  selling 
price  is  the  product  of  rent  and  interest. 

I  have  also  seen  it  claimed  that  under  liberty  there  will  be  no  great 
cities,  and  therefore  no  city  prices  for  land.  I  can  understand  that  liberty 
will  make  the  masses  richer,  so  that  they  will  be  better  able  to  choose 
the  home  which  pleases  them;  and  that  it  will  make  them  saner,  so  that 
they  will  better  appreciate  the  attractions  of  country  life.  But  cities  will 
still  offer  the  greatest  opportunities  for  making  money,  and  many  social 
and  aesthetic  advantages.  I  cannot  believe,  therefore,  that  great  cities 
will  disappear. 

As  to  the  freeing  of  vacant  land,  I  do  not  remember  to  have  heard 
that  this  would  destroy  any  but  "  speculative  "  rent.  There  might  per- 
haps be  a  greater  relief  at  first,  while  the  vacant  land  was  being  taken  up. 
But  certainly  within  a  short  time — within  a  year,  I  should  say — all  land 
which  had  any  special  advantage  over  ordinary  farming  land  would  be 
occupied,  and  these  special  advantages  would  be  in  the  hands  of  the  oc- 
cupiers. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  remembered  that,  if  any  economic  rent 
is  left,  every  advance  in  prosperity  will  naturally  tend  to  increase  this 
rent.    And  liberty  is  to  cause  an  advance  in  prosperity. 

Again,  when  vacant  land  is  free,  cities  can  be  settled  more  compactly. 
This  will  intensify  the  peculiar  advantages  of  city  life,  and  thereby  in- 
crease the  demand  for  city  and  suburban  land.  The  effect  of  free  vacant 
land  would,  I  imagine,  be  closely  analogous  to  that  of  rapid  transit, 
which  was  expected  to  decrease  rent,  but  has  instead  increased  it. 

How,  then,  is  economic  rent  to  be  got  out  of  the  way  ? 

Stephen  T.  Byington. 

Liberty  has  never  stood  with  those  who  profess  to  show  on 
strictly  economic  grounds  that  economic  rent  must  disappear 
or  even  decrease  as  a  result  of  the  application  of  the  Anar- 
chistic principle.  It  sees  no  chance  for  that  factor  in  the  hu- 
man constitution  which  makes  competition  such  a  powerful 
influence — namely,  the  disposition  to  buy  in  the  cheapest  mar- 
ket— to  act  directly  upon  economic  rent  in  a  way  to  reduce  it. 
This  disposition  to  buy  cheap,  which  in  a  free  market  is  fatal 
to  all  other  forms  of  usury,  is  on  the  contrary  the  mainstay 
of  economic  rent,  whether  the  market  be  free  or  restricted. 
When,  through  freedom  of  banking,  it  shall  become  possible 
to  furnish  money  at  cost,  no  one  will  pay  for  money  more  than 
cost  ;  and  hence  interest  on  money,  as  well  as  on  all  capital 
consisting  of  commodities  which  money  will  buy  and  to  the 
production  of  which  there  is  no  natural  limit,  will  necessarily 
disappear.  But  the  occupant  of  land  who  is  enabled,  by  its 
superiority,  to  undersell  his  neighbor  and  at  the  same  time  to 
reap,  through  his  greater  volume  of  business,  more  profit  than 
his  neighbor,  enjoys  this  economic  rent  precisely  because  of 


LAND  AND  RENT.  345 

his  opportunity  to  exploit  the  consumer's  disposition  to  buy- 
cheap.  The  effect  of  freedom  is  not  felt  here  in  the  same  way 
and  with  the  same  directness  that  it  is  felt  elsewhere. 

There  are  other  grounds,  however,  some  of  them  indirectly 
economic,  some  of  them  purely  sentimental,  which  justify  the 
belief  of  the  Anarchist  that  a  condition  of  freedom  will  grad- 
ually modify  to  a  very  appreciable  extent  the  advantage  en- 
joyed by  the  occupant  of  superior  land.    Take  first  one  that 
is  indirectly  economic.    I  agree  with  my  correspondent  that 
great  cities  are  not  destined  to  disappear.     But  I  believe  also 
that  they  will  be  able  to  maintain  their  existence  only  by  of- 
fering their  advantages  at  a  lower  price  than  they  now  exact. ' 
When  the  laborer,  in  consequence  of  his  increased  wages  and 
greater  welfare  resulting  from  the  abolition  of  interest,  shall 
enjoy  a  larger  freedom  of  locomotion,  shall  be  tied  down  less 
firmly  to  a  particular  employment,  and  shall  be  able  to  remove 
to  the  country  with  greater  facility  and  in  possession  of  more 
capital  than  he  can  now  command,  and  when  the  country 
partly  because  of  this  mobility  of  labor  and  partly  because  of 
the  advances  in  science,  shall  continually  offer  a  nearer  ap- 
proach to  the  undoubted  privileges  of  city  life,  the  representa- 
tives of  commercial  and  other  interests  in  the  great  cities  will 
be  able  to  hold  their  patrons  about  them  only  by  lowering 
their  prices  and  contenting  themselves  with  smaller  gains  In 
other  words,  economic  rent  will  lessen.    Here  the  disposition 
to  buy  cheap,  not  any  special  commodity,  but  an  easy  life 
does  exert  an  indirect  and  general  influence  upon  economic 
rent.^  And,  under  this  influence  and  yielding  to  it,  the  city 
may  increase  in  prosperity  simultaneously  with  the  decline  of 
economic  rent.    Nay,  the  increase  in  prosperity  may  accele- 
rate this  decline;  for  under  liberty  increased  prosperity  means 
also  well-distributed  prosperity,  which  means  in  turn  a  lower- 
ing of  the  barriers  between  classes  and  a  consequent  tendency 
to  equalize  the  different  localities  of  the  city  one  with  an- 
other. 

Upon  the  sentimental  grounds  for  believing  in  the  evanes- 
cence of  economic  rent  it  is  perhaps  not  worth  while  to  dwell 
I  have  an  aversion  to  definite  speculations  based  on  hypo- 
thetical transformations  in  human  nature.  Yet  I  cannot 
doubt  that  the  disappearance  of  interest  will  result  in  an  atti- 
tude of  hostility  to  usury  in  any  form,  which  will  ultimately 
cause  any  person  who  charges  more  than  cost  for  any  product 
to  be  regarded  very  much  as  we  now  regard  a  pickpocket  In 
this  way,  too,  economic  rent  will  suffer  diminution. 

I  think  my  correspondent  fails  to  understand  what  is  meant 


.346 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


by  the  freeing  of  vacant  land.  It  does  not  mean  simply  the 
freeing  of  unoccupied  land.  It  means  the  freeing  of  all  land 
not  occupied  by  the  owner.  In  other  words,  it  means  land 
ownership  limited  by  occupancy  and  use.  This  would  destroy 
not  only  speculative  but  monopolistic  rent,  leaving  no  rent  ex- 
cept the  economic  form,  which  will  be  received,  while  it  lasts, 
not  as  a  sum  paid  by  occupant  to  owner,  but  as  an  extra  and 
usurious  reward  for  labor  performed  under  special  advantages. 

But  even  if  economic  rent  had  to  be  considered  a  per- 
manency ;  if  the  considerations  which  I  have  urged  should 
prove  of  no  avail  against  it, — it  would  be  useless,  tyrannical, 
and  productive  of  further  tyranny  to  confiscate  it.  In  the 
first  place,  if  I  have  a  right  to  a  share  of  the  advantages  that 
accrue  from  the  possession  of  superior  land,  then  that  share  is 
mine  ;  it  is  my  property;  it  is  like  any  other  property  of  mine  ; 
no  man,  no  body  of  men,  is  entitled  to  decide  how  this  prop- 
erty shall  be  used;  and  any  man  or  body  of  men  attempting  so  to 
decide  deprives  me  of  my  property  just  as  truly  as  the  owner 
of  the  superior  land  deprives  me  of  it  if  allowed  to  retain  the 
economic  rent.  In  fact,  still  assuming  that  this  property  is 
mine,  I  prefer,  if  I  must  be  robbed  of  it,  to  be  robbed  by  the 
land-owner,  who  is  likely  to  spend  it  in  some  useful  way, 
rather  than  by  an  institution  called  government,  which  prob- 
ably will  spend  it  for  fireworks  or  something  else  which  I 
equally  disapprove.  If  the  property  is  mine,  I  claim  it,  to  do 
as  I  please  with  ;  if  it  is  not  mine,  it  is  impertinent,  dishonest, 
and  tyrannical  for  anybody  to  forcibly  take  it  from  the  land- 
occupant  on  the  pretence  that  it  is  mine  and  to  spend  it  in 
my  name.  It  is  precisely  this,  however,  that  the  Single-Taxers 
propose,  and  it  is  this  that  makes  the  Single  Tax  a  State 
Socialistic  measure.  There  was  never  anything  more  absurd 
than  the  supposition  of  some  Single-Taxers  that  this  tax  can 
be  harmonized  with  Anarchism. 

But  I  now  and  then  meet  a  Single-Taxer  who  allows  that 
the  government,  after  confiscating  this  economic  rent,  has  no 
right  to  devote  it  to  any  so-called  public  purposes,  but  should 
distribute  it  to  the  people.  Supposing  the  people  to  be  en- 
titled to  the  economic  rent,  this  certainly  looks  on  its  face  like 
a  much  saner  and  more  honest  proposition  than  that  of  the 
ordinary  Single-Taxer.  But  the  question  at  once  arises: 
Who  is  to  pay  the  government  officials  for  their  services  in 
confiscating  the  economic  rent  and  handing  me  my  share  of 
it  ?  And  how  much  is  to  be  paid  them  ?  And  who  is  to  de- 
cide these  matters  ?  When  I  reflect  that  under  such  a  Single- 
Tax  system  the  occupants  of  superior  land  are  likely  to  be- 


LAND   AND  RENT. 


347 


come  the  politicians  and  to  tax  back  from  the  people  to  pay 
their  salaries  what  the  people  have  taxed  out  of  them  as  eco- 
nomic rent,  again  I  say  that,  even  if  a  part  of  the  economic 
rent  is  rightly  mine,  I  prefer  to  leave  it  in  the  pocket  of  the 
land-owner,  since  it  is  bound  to  ultimately  get  back  there.  As 
M.  Schneider,  the  Carnegie  of  France,  said  in  a  reaent  inter- 
view with  a  Figaro  reporter  :  M  Even  if  we  were  to  have  a 
collectivist  system  of  society  and  my  property  should  be  con- 
fiscated, I  believe  that  I  am  shrewd  enough  to  find  a  way  to 
feather  my  nest  just  the  same."  M.  Schneider  evidently  un- 
derstands State  Socialism  better  than  the  State  Socialists 
themselves.  The  Socialists  and  Single-Taxers  will  have  at- 
tained their  paradise  when  they  are  robbed  by  officials  instead 
of  by  landlords  and  capitalists. 

In  my  view  it  is  idle  to  discuss  what  shall  be  done  with  the 
economic  rent  after  it  has  been  confiscated,  for  I  distinctly 
deny  the  propriety  of  confiscating  it  at  all.  There  are  two 
ways,  and  only  two,  of  effecting  the  distribution  of  wealth.  One 
is  to  let  it  distribute  itself  in  a  free  market  in  accordance  with 
the  natural  operation  of  economic  law  ;  the  other  is  to  distrib- 
ute it  arbitrarily  by  authority  in  accordance  with  statute  law. 
One  is  Anarchism  ;  the  other  is  State  Socialism.  The  latter, 
in  its  worst  and  most  probable  form,  is  the  exploitation  of 
labor  by  officialdom,  and  at  its  best  is  a  regime  of  spiritless 
equality  secured  at  the  expense  of  liberty  and  progress  ;  the 
former  is  a  regime  of  liberty  and  progress,  with  as  close  an  ap- 
proximation to  equality  as  is  compatible  therewith.  And  this 
is  all  the  equality  that  we  ought  to  have.  A  greater  equality 
than  is  compatible  with  liberty  is  undesirable.  The  moment 
we  invade  liberty  to  secure  equality  we  enter  upon  a  road 
which  knows  no  stopping-place  short  of  the  annihilation  of  all 
that  is  best  in  the  human  race.  If  absolute  equality  is  the 
ideal  ;  if  no  man  must  have  the  slightest  advantage  over  an- 
other,— then  the  man  who  achieves  greater  results  through 
superiority  of  muscle  or  skill  or  brain  must  not  be  allowed  to 
enjoy  them.  All  that  he  produces  in  excess  of  that  which  the 
weakest  and  stupidest  produce  must  be  taken  from  him  and 
distributed  among  his  fellows.  The  economic  rent,  not  of 
land  only,  but  of  strength  and  skill  and  intellect  and  superior- 
ity of  every  kind,  must  be  confiscated.  And  a  beautiful  world 
it  would  be  when  absolute  equality  had  been  thus  achieved  ! 
Who  would  live  in  it  ?    Certainly  no  freeman. 

Liberty  will  abolish  interest  ;  it  will  abolish  profit  ;  it  will 
abolish  monopolistic  rent  ;  it  will  abolish  taxation  ;  it  will 
abolish  the  exploitation  of  labor ;  it  will  abolish  all  means 


348 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


whereby  any  laborer  can  be  deprived  of  any  of  his  product ; 
but  it  will  not  abolish  the  limited  inequality  between  one 
laborer's  product  and  another's.  Now,  because  it  has  not  this 
power  last  named,  there  are  people  who  say  :  We  will  have  no 
liberty,  for  we  must  have  absolute  equality.  I  am  not  of 
them.  If  I  can  go  through  life  free  and  rich,  I  shall  not  cry 
because  my  neighbor,  equally  free,  is  richer.  Liberty  will 
ultimately  make  all  men  rich  ;  it  will  not  make  all  men  equally 
rich.  Authority  may  (and  may  not)  make  all  men  equally  rich 
in  purse  ;  *it  certainly  will  make  them  equally  poor  in  all  that 
makes  life  best  worth  living. 


LIBERTY  AND  PROPERTY. 

[Liberty,  December  31,  1892.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty : 

I  can  agree  with  much  that  you  say  in  your  answer  to  my  letter  in 
No.  244  of  Liberty,  but  I  do  not  think  you  have  proved  your  case. 

In  the  first  place,  I  object  to  your  assumption  that  the  plan  proposed 
by  Anarchists  would  realize  equal  liberty  with  regard  to  the  land.  You 
praise  the  idea  of  "letting  wealth  distribute  itself  in  a  free  market."  I 
echo  your  praises  ;  but  I  cannot  see  that  they  are  anything  to  the  point 
of  this  discussion,  for  you  do  not  offer  a  free  market. 

It  is  a  part  of  my  liberty  to  use  any  land  that  I  can  use.  When  another 
man  takes  a  piece  of  land  for  his  own  and  warns  me  off  it,  he  exceeds  the 
limits  of  equal  liberty  towards  me  with  respect  to  that  land.  If  equally 
valuable  land  were  open  to  me,  the  importance  of  his  invasion  would  be 
mainly  theoretical  ;  but  when  he  shuts  me  out  of  a  corner  lot  on  lower 
Broadway,  and  asks  me  to  console  myself  by  taking  up  a  New  England 
' 1  abandoned  farm,"  it  seems  to  me  that  I  am  receiving  a  very  practical 
injury.  It  might  be  a  sort  of  reason  in  his  favor  if  he  were  putting  the 
land  to  better  use  than  I  could.  His  title  rests  simply  on  the  fact  that  he 
was  there  first,  either  by  accident  or  because  he  had  better  speculative 
foresight  than  I.  The  presence  of  his  improvements  on  the  land  is  the 
result  of  his  invasion,  and  therefore  cannot  justify  it. 

The  case  of  the  man  who  receives  what  you  call  "  the  economic  rent  of 
strength  and  skill"  is  not  parallel,  for  he  has  not  gained  his  advantage  by 
hindering  another  from  using  the  strength  and  skill  which  were  within 
that  other's  reach. 

Now,  I  say  :  "  I  am  not  willing  to  waive  my  rights  in  this  land  unless 
the  holder  will  buy  me  off  by  paying  a  fair  equivalent.  I  see  no  way  in 
which  I  can  collect  this  equivalent  by  myself,  or  through  an  organization 
representing  only  a  part  of  the  people.  Therefore  I  consent  that  one 
board  of  authority  shall  assume  to  represent  the  whole  people  for  this 
purpose,  in  order  to  prevent  what  seems  to  me  a  greater  invasion  on  the 
part  of  the  land-owner."  You  say  "I  consent  to  this  invasion  on  the 
part  of  a  bona  fide  occupier,  rather  than  to  admit  a  compulsory  tax  ;  for 
I  think  that  the  latter  is  in  itself  a  greater  invasion,  and  also  that  it  would 


LAND   AND  RENT. 


349 


be  an  entering  wedge  for  the  whole  mass  of  government."  Each  of  us 
proposes  to  waive  one  part  of  equal  liberty  for  the  sake  of  preserving 
another  part.  The  only  question  is  on  which  side  the  maximum  of  liberty 
lies.  Certainly  any  force  which  I  might  use  in  carrying  out  my  principle 
would  be  "  against  force"  ;  and  I  think  that,  if  private  possession  of  land 
is  responsible  for  as  much  evil  as  I  suppose,  it  constitutes  an  emergency 
great  enough  to  justify  me  in  overriding  the  opposition  of  those  who  do 
not  agree  with  me. 

I  am  not  convinced  by  your  objection  that  the  single-tax  money  would 
be  used  up  in  paying  tax-collectors'  salaries.  There  is  nothing  to  hinder 
paying  them  by  voluntary  taxation.  If  I  were  enacting  a  law  to  suit  my 
own  fancy,  I  would  confiscate  rent,  and  then  let  every  one  who  chose 
draw  his  per  capita  share,  with  no  deduction  for  salaries  or  anything  else. 
But  I  should  expect  that  comparatively  few  would  choose  to  take  out  their 
shares  under  penalty  of  paying  at  retail  prices  for  privileges  which  would 
be  free,  or  below  cost,  to  those  who  remained  partners  in  the  large  fund. 
Collectors'  salaries  should  be  paid  out  of  this  large,  undivided  fund,  which 
would  be  a  voluntary  tax  on  those  who  chose  not  to  take  out  their  shares. 
At  any  rate,  whether  this  is  possible  or  not,  if  the  people  believe  that  the 
advantages  of  confiscating  rent  are  worth  the  sum  spent  for  collection,  they 
will  be  willing  to  pay  that  sum  voluntarily  ;  if  they  do  not  believe  so,  they 
will  not  confiscate  rent. 

Of  course  distribution  at  so  much  per  capita  is  a  terribly  wooden  way  of 
trying  to  give  every  man  his  own,  and  1  should  be  glad  of  a  better.  Aside 
from  that,  I  cannot  see  how  my  plan,  if  carried  out  in  good  faith,  would 
disagree  with  the  law  of  equal  liberty.  I  expect  you  to  answer  that  it 
could  not  be  carried  out  in  good  faith. 

Your  editorial  makes  two  points  against  the  single  tax.  You  say  first 
that  the  money  would  be  badly  spent.  I  answer,  then  let  us  spend  it 
better.  Then  you  say,  very  soundly,  that  it  is  idle  to  discuss  what  shall  be 
done  with  the  confiscated  rent  when  the  question  is  as  to  the  propriety  of 
confiscating  it  at  all.  Your  second  point  is  that  the  single  tax  is  authorita- 
rian, and  you  favor  liberty.  I  answer  that  you  propose  to  use  force  to 
support  the  occupier  of  land  in  a  plain  invasion  of  my  rights.  You  have 
no  right  to  call  that  liberty.  Perhaps  it  may  be  the  nearest  possible  ap- 
proach to  liberty  ;  I  think  not. 

As  to  the  relief  that  your  system  might  bring,  I  object  to  your  "  senti- 
mental "  ground  for  expecting  rent  to  diminish.  If  I  understand  you,  you 
expect  the  occupier  of  valuable  ground  to  sell  his  goods  below  competi- 
tive prices.  The  result  might  be  that  some  lucky  ones  would  get  special 
bargains,  while  their  neighbors  must  go  without,  or  that  people  would 
stand  in  line  before  this  merchant's  door  till  they  had  wasted  time  enough 
to  make  up  the  difference  in  price,  or  that  he  would  employ  extra  men 
till  the  law  of  diminishing  returns  brought  his  prices  up  to  an  equality 
with  others.  In  the  first  case  the  rent  would  simply  be  divided  among  a 
larger  number,  while  others  would  be  left  out  in  the  cold  as  much  as 
before.  In  the  second  and  third  cases,  it  would  be  disposed  of  by  what  is 
equivalent  to  throwing  it  into  the  river.  Neither  way  suits  me.  Of 
course,  the  result  I  should  expect  in  practice  would  be  a  complex  of  the 
three  in  disguised  forms.  Stephen  T.  Byington. 

Let  me  begin  my  brief  rejoinder  by  expressing  my  appreci- 
ation of  my  opponent.  Once  in  a  great  while  one  meets  an 
adversary  who  confines  himself  to  the  question  at  issue,  re- 


35° 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


sorts  to  no  evasion,  reasons  himself,  and  is  willing  to  listen  to 
reason.  Such  a  man,  I  am  sure,  is  Mr.  Byington,  though  I 
know  him  only  by  his  writings.  It  is  pleasant  to  debate  with 
him,  after  having  had  to  deal  so  continually  with  the  Mer- 
linos,  the  Mosts,  the  Hudspeths,  and  the  whole  host  of  those 
who  cannot  think. 

Mr.  Byington's  erroneous  conclusions  regarding  the  confis- 
cation of  economic  rent  are  due,  as  I  view  it,  to  his  confusion 
of  liberties  with  rights,  or,  perhaps  I  might  better  say,  to  his 
foundation  of  equality  of  liberty  upon  a  supposed  equality  of 
rights.  I  take  issue  with  him  at  the  very  start  by  denying  the 
dogma  of  equality  of  rights, — in  fact,  by  denying  rights  al- 
together except  those  acquired  by  contract.  In  times  past, 
when,  though  already  an  Egoist  and  knowing  then  as  now 
that  every  man  acts  and  always  will  act  solely  from  an  inter- 
est in  self,  I  had  not  considered  the  bearing  of  Egoism  upon 
the  question  of  obligation,  it  was  my  habit  to  talk  glibly  and 
loosely  of  the  right  of  man  to  the  land.  It  was  a  bad  habit, 
and  I  long  ago  sloughed  it  off.  Man's  only  right  over  the  land 
is  his  might  over  it.  If  his  neighbor  is  mightier  than  he  and 
takes  the  land  from  him,  then  the  land  is  his  neighbor's  until 
the  latter  is  dispossessed  in  turn  by  one  mightier  still.  But 
while  the  danger  of  such  dispossession  continues  there  is  no 
society,  no  security,  no  comfort.  Hence  men  contract.  They 
agree  upon  certain  conditions  of  land  ownership,  and  will  pro- 
tect no  title  in  the  absence  of  the  conditions  fixed  upon.  The 
object  of  this  contract  is  not  to  enable  all  to  benefit  equally  from 
the  land,  but  to  enable  each  to  hold  securely  at  his  own  dis- 
posal the  results  of  his  efforts  expended  upon  such  portion  of 
the  earth  as  he  may  possess  under  the  conditions  agreed  upon. 
It  is  principally  to  secure  this  absolute  control  of  the  results 
of  one's  efforts  that  equality  of  liberty  is  instituted,  not  as  a 
matter  of  right,  but  as  a  social  convenience.  I  have  always 
maintained  that  liberty  is  of  greater  importance  than  wealth, — 
in  other  words,  that  man  derives  more  happiness  from  freedom 
than  from  luxury, — and  this  is  true  ;  but  there  is  another  sense 
in  which  wealth,  or,  rather,  property,  is  of  greater  importance 
than  liberty.  Man  has  but  little  to  gain  from  liberty  unless 
that  liberty  includes  the  liberty  to  control  what  he  produces. 
One  of  the  chief  purposes  of  equal  liberty  is  to  secure  this 
fundamental  necessity  of  property,  and,  if  property  is  not 
thereby  secured,  the  temptation  is  to  abandon  the  regime  of 
contract  and  return  to  the  reign  of  the  strongest. 

Now  the  difference  between  the  equal  liberty  of  the  An- 
archists and  the  system  which  Mr.  Byington  and  the  Single- 


LAND  AND  RENT. 


351 


Taxers  consider  equal  liberty  is  this  :  the  former  secures 
property,  while  the  latter  violates  it. 

The  Anarchists  say  to  the  individual  :  "  Occupancy  and 
use  is  the  only  title  to  land  in  which  we  will  protect  you  ;  if 
you  attempt  to  use  land  which  another  is  occupying  and  using, 
we  will  protect  him  against  you  ;  if  another  attempts  to  use 
land  to  which  you  lay  claim,  but  which  you  are  not  occupying 
and  using,  we  will  not  interfere  with  him  ;  but  of  such  land  as 
you  occupy  and  use  you  are  the  sole  master,  and  we  will  not 
ourselves  take  from  you,  or  allow  any  one  else  to  take  from 
you,  whatever  you  may  get  out  of  such  land." 

The  Single-Taxers,  on  the  other  hand,  say  to  the  individual : 
"  You  may  hold  all  the  land  you  have  inherited  or  bought,  or 
may  inherit  or  buy,  and  we  will  protect  you  in  such  holding  ; 
but,  if  you  produce  more  from  your  land  than  your  neighbors 
produce  from  theirs,  we  will  take  from  you  the  excess  of  your 
product  over  theirs  and  distribute  it  among  them,  or  we  will 
spend  it  in  taking  a  free  ride  whenever  we  want  to  go  any- 
where, or  we  will  make  any  use  of  it,  wise  or  foolish,  that  may 
come  into  our  heads." 

The  reader  who  compares  these  two  positions  will  need  no 
comment  of  mine  to  enable  him  to  decide  "  on  which  side  the 
maximum  of  liberty  lies,"  and  on  which  side  property,  or  the 
individual  control  of  product,  is  respected. 

If  Mr.  Byington  does  not  accept  my  view  thus  outlined,  it  is 
incumbent  upon  him  to  overthrow  it  by  proving  to  me  that 
man  has  a  right  to  land  ;  if  he  does  accept  it,  he  must  see 
that  it  completely  disposes  of  his  assertion  that  "when  another 
man  takes  a  piece  of  land  for  his  own  and  warns  me  off  it,  he 
exceeds  the  limits  of  equal  liberty  toward  me  with  respect  to 
that  land,"  upon  which  assertion  all  his  argument  rests. 

I  see  an  excellent  opportunity  for  some  interesting  and 
forcible  remarks  in  comment  upon  Mr.  Byington's  concluding 
paragraph,  but,  desiring  to  confine  the  discussion  to  essentials 
for  the  present,  I  refrain. 


GOING  TO  PIECES  ON  THE  ROCKS. 

{Liberty ^  March  12,  1887.] 

Some  of  Henry  George's  correspondents  have  been  pestering 
him  a  good  deal  lately  with  embarrassing  questions  as  to  what 
will  become,  under  his  system,  of  the  home  of  a  man  who  has 


352 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


built  a  house  upon  a  bit  of  land  which  afterwards  so  rises  in 
value  that  he  cannot  afford  to  pay  the  taxes  on  it.  Unable  to 
deny  that  such  a  man  would  be  as  summarily  evicted  by  the 
government  landlord  as  is  the  Irish  farmer  in  arrears  by  the 
individual  landlord,  and  yet  afraid  to  squarely  admit  it,  Mr. 
George  has  twisted  and  turned  and  doubled  and  dodged,  at- 
tempting to  shield  himself  by  all  sorts  of  irrelevant  considera- 
tions, until  at  last  he  is  reduced  to  asking  in  rejoinder  if  this 
argument  has  not  "  a  great  deal  of  the  flavor  of  the  Georgia 
deacon's  denunciation  of  abolitionists  because  they  wanted 
to  deprive  the  widow  Smith  of  her  solitary  '  nigger,'  her  only 
means  of  support."  That  is,  Mr.  George  virtually  asserts  that 
the  claim  to  own  a  human  being  is  no  more  indefensible  than 
the  claim  of  the  laborer  to  own  the  house  he  has  built  and  to 
the  unincumbered  and  indefinite  use  of  whatever  site  he  may 
have  selected  for  it  without  dispossessing  another.  The  editor 
of  the  Standard  must  have  been  reduced  to  sore  straits  when 
he  resorted  to  this  argument.  -  With  all  his  shuffling  he  has  not 
yet  escaped,  and  never  can  escape,  the  fact  that,  if  govern- 
ment were  to  confiscate  land  values,  any  man  would  be  liable 
to  be  turned  out  of  doors,  perhaps  with  compensation,  perhaps 
without  it,  and  thus  deprived,  maybe,  of  his  dearest  joy  and 
subjected  to  irreparable  loss,  just  because  other  men  had  set- 
tled in  his  vicinity  or  decided  to  run  a  railroad  within  two  min- 
utes' walk  of  his  door.  This  in  itself  is  enough  to  damn  Mr. 
George's  project.  That  boasted  craft,  Landr.Nationalization, 
is  floundering  among  the  rocks,  and  the  rock  of  individual  lib- 
erty and  the  inalienable  homestead  has  just  made  an  enormous 
hole  in  its  unseaworthy  bottom  which  will  admit  all  the  water 
necessary  to  sink  it. 


"  SIMPLIFYING  GOVERNMENT." 

[Liberty,  September  10,  1887.] 

Henry  George's  correspondents  continue  to  press  him 
regarding  the  fate  of  the  man  whose  home  should  so  rise  in 
value  through  increase  of  population  that  he  would  be  taxed 
out  of  it.  At  first,  it  will  be  remembered,  Mr.  George  coolly 
sneered  at  the  objectors  to  this  species  of  eviction  as  near  rel- 
atives of  those  who  objected  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  on  the 
ground  that  it  would  "  deprive  the  widow  Smith  of  her  only 
'nigger.'"    Liberty made  some  comments  on  this,  which  Mr, 


LAND   AND  RENT. 


353 


George  never  noticed.  Since  their  appearance,  however,  his 
analogy  between  property  in  "  niggers  "  and  a  man's  property 
in  his  house  has  lapsed,  as  President  Cleveland  would  say,  into 
a  condition  of  "  innocuous  desuetude,"  and  a  new  method  of 
settling  this  difficulty  has  been  evolved.  A  correspondent 
having  supposed  the  case  of  a  man  whose  neighborhood  should 
become  a  business  centre,  and  whose  place  of  residence,  there- 
fore, as  far  as  the  land  was  concerned,  should  rise  in  value  so 
that  he  could  not  afford  or  might  not  desire  to  pay  the  tax 
upon  it,  but,  as  far  as  his  house  was  concerned,  should  almost 
entirely  lose  its  value  because  of  its  unfitness  for  business  pur- 
poses, Mr.  George  makes  answer  that  the  community  very 
likely  would  give  such  a  man  a  new  house  elsewhere  to  com- 
pensate him  for  being  obliged  to  sell  his  house  at  a  sacrifice. 
That  this  method  has  some  advantages  over  the  "nigger"  ar- 
gument I  am  not  prepared  to  deny,  but  I  am  tempted  to  ask 
Mr.  George  whether  this  is  one  of  the  ways  by  which  he  pro- 
poses to  "simplify  government." 


»  i 

ON  PICKET  DUTY. 

Henry  George,  in  the  Standard,  calls  Dr.  Cogswell  of  San 
Francisco,  who  has  endowed  a  polytechnic  college  in  that  city, 
and  for  its  maintenance  has  conveyed  certain  lands  to  trustees, 
a  "  philanthropist  by  proxy,"  on  the  ground  that  the  people 
who  pay  rent  for  these  lands  are  really  taxed  by  Dr.  Cogswell 
for  the  support  of  the  college.  But  what  are  Henry  George 
himself,  by  his  theory,  and  his  ideal  State,  by  its  practice,  after 
realization,  but  "  philanthropists  by  proxy  "?  What  else,  in 
fact,  is  the  State  as  it  now  exists  ?  (Oftener  a  cannibal  than  a 
philanthropist,  to  be  sure,  but  in  either  case  by  proxy.)  Does 
not  Mr.  George  propose  that  the  State  shall  tax  individuals  to 
secure  "  public  improvements"  which  they  may  not  consider 
such,  or  which  they  may  consider  less  desirable  to  them  than 
private  improvements?  Does  he  not  propose  that  individuals 
shall  "  labor  gratis"  for  the  State,  "whether  they  like  it  or 
not  "  ?  Does  he  not  maintain  that  what  the  State  "  does  with 
their  labor  is  simply  none  of  their  business  "  ?  Mr.  George's 
criticism  of  Dr.  Cogswell  is  equally  a  criticism  of  every  form 
of  compulsory  taxation,  especially  the  taxation  of  land  values. 
He  has  aptly  and  accurately  described  himself. — Liberty,  April 
23,  1887. 


354 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


There  must  be  a  limitation  to  great  fortunes,  says  Henry 
George,  "  but  that  limitation  must  be  natural,  not  artificial. 
Such  a  limitation  is  offered  by  the  land  value  tax."  What  in 
the  name  of  sense  is  there  about  a  tax  that  makes  it  natural 
as  distinguished  from  artificial  ?  If  anything  in  the  world  is 
purely  artificial,  taxes  are.  And  if  they  are  collected  by  force, 
they  are  not  only  artificial,  but  arbitrary  and  tyrannical. — 
Liberty,  May  7,  1887. 

Henry  George  answers  a  correspondent  who  asks  if  under 
the  system  of  taxing  land  values  an  enemy  could  not  compel 
him  to  pay  a  higher  tax  on  his  land  simply  by  making  him  an 
offer  for  the  land  in  excess  of  the  existing  basis  of  taxation,  by 
saying  that  no  offers  will  change  the  basis  of  taxation  unless 
they  are  made  in  good  faith  and  for  other  than  sentimental 
motives.  It  seems,  then,  that  the  tax  assessors  are  to  be  in- 
quisitors as  well,  armed  with  power  to  subject  men  to  ex- 
amination of  their  motives  for  desiring  to  effect  any  given 
transaction  in  land.  What  glorious  days  those  will  be  for 
"  boodlers  "I  What  golden  opportunities  for  fraud,  favoritism, 
bribery,  and  corruption  !  And  yet  Mr.  George  will  have  it 
that  he  intends  to  reduce  the  power  of  government. — Liberty, 
May  28,  1887. 

Henry  George  thinks  the  New  York  Suns  claim,  that  it  is 
"for  liberty  first,  last,  and  forever,"  pretty  cool  from  a  paper 
that  supports  a  protective  tariff.  So  it  is.  But  the  frigidity 
of  this  claim  is  even  greater  when  it  comes  from  a  man  who 
proposes  on  occasion  to  tax  a  man  out  of  his  home,  and  to 
"  simplify  "  government  by  making  it  the  owner  of  all  rail- 
roads, telegraphs,  gas-works,  and  water-works,  so  enlarging  its 
revenues  that  all  sorts  of  undreamed-of  public  improvements 
will  become  possible,  and  unnumbered  public  officials  to  ad- 
minister them  necessary. — Liberty,  July  2,  1887. 

The  idiocy  of  the  arguments  employed  by  the  daily  press  in 
discussing  the  labor  question  cannot  well  be  exaggerated,  but 
nevertheless  it  sometimes  makes  a  point  on  Henry  George 
which  that  gentleman  cannot  meet.  For  instance,  the  New 
York  World  lately  pointed  out  that  unearned  increment  at- 
taches not  only  to  land,  but  to  almost  every  product  of  labor. 
"Newspapers,"  it  said,  "are  made  valuable  properties  by  the 
increase  of  population."  Mr.  George  seems  to  think  this  ri- 
diculous, and  inquires  confidently  whether  the  World* s  suc- 
cess is  due  to  increase  of  population  or  to  Pulitzer's  business 
management.     As  if  one  cause  excluded  the  other  !  Does 


Land  and  rent. 


355 


Mr.  George  believe,  then,  that  Pulitzer's  business  manage- 
ment could  have  secured  a  million  readers  of  the  World  if 
there  had  been  no  people  in  New  York  ?  Of*  course  not. 
Then,  to  follow  his  own  logic,  Mr.  George  ought  to  discrimi- 
nate in  this  case,  as  in  the  case  of  land,  between  the  owner's 
improvements  and  the  community's  improvements,  and  tax  the 
latter  out  of  the  owner's  hands. — Liberty,  July  2,  1887. 

Henry  George  was  recently  reminded  in  these  columns  that 
his  own  logic  would  compel  him  to  lay  a  tax  not  only  on  land 
values,  but  on  all  values  growing  out  of  increase  of  popula- 
tion, and  newspaper  properties  were  cited  in  illustration.  A 
correspondent  of  the  Standard  has  made  the  same  criticism, 
instancing,  instead  of  a  newspaper,  "Crusoe's  boat,  which  rose 
in  value  when  a  ship  appeared  on  the  horizon."  To  this  cor- 
respondent Mr.  George  makes  answer  that,  while  Crusoe's 
boat  might  have  acquired  a  value  when  other  people  came, 
"  because  value  is  a  factor  of  trading,  and,  when  there  is  no 
one  to  trade  with,  there  can  be  no  value,"  yet  "it  by  no 
means  follows  that  growth  of  population  increases  the  value 
of  labor  products;  for  a  population  of  fifty  will  give  as  much 
value  to  a  desirable  product  as  a  population  of  a  million."  I 
am  ready  to  admit  this  of  any  article  which  can  be  readily  pro- 
duced by  any  and  all  who  choose  to  produce  it.  But,  as  Mr. 
George  says,  it  is  not  true  of  land;  and  it  is  as  emphatically 
not  true  of  every  article  in  great  demand  which  can  be  pro- 
duced, in  approximately  equal  quality  and  with  approximately 
equal  expense,  by  only  one  or  a  few  persons.  There  are  many 
such  articles,  and  one  of  them  is  a  popular  newspaper.  Such 
articles  are  of  small  value  where  there  are  few  people  and  of 
immense  value  where  there  are  many.  This  extra  value  is  un- 
earned increment,  and  ought  to  be  taxed  out  of  the  individ- 
ual's hands  into  those  of  the  community  if  any  unearned  in- 
crement ought  to  be.  Come,  Mr.  George,  be  honest  !  Let  us 
see  whither  your  doctrine  will  lead  us. — Liberty,  July  30,  1887. 

Cart  and  horse  are  all  one  to  Henry  George.  He  puts 
either  first  to  suit  his  fancy  or  the  turn  his  questioner  may 
take,  and  no  matter  which  he  places  in  the  lead,  he  "  gets 
there  all  the  same" — on  paper.  When  he  is  asked  how  taxa- 
tion of  land  values  will  abolish  poverty,  he  answers  that  the 
rush  of  wage-laborers  to  the  land  will  reduce  the  supply  of 
labor  and  send  wages  up.  Then,  when  somebody  else  asks 
him  how  wage-laborers  will  be  able  to  rush  to  the  land  with- 
out money  to  take  them  there  and  capital  to  work  the  land 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


afterwards,  he  answers  that  wages  will  then  be  so  high  that  the 
laborers  will  soon  be  able  to  save  up  money  enough  to  start 
with.  Sometimes,  indeed,  as  if  dimly  perceiving  the  presence 
of  some  inconsistency  lurking  between  these  two  propositions, 
he  volunteers  an  additional  suggestion  that,  after  the  lapse  of 
a  generation,  he  will  be  a  phenomenally  unfortunate  young 
man  who  shall  have  no  relatives  or  friends  to  help  him  start 
upon  the  land.  But  we  are  left  as  much  in  the  dark  as  ever 
about  the  method  by  which  these  relatives  or  friends,  during 
the  generation  which  must  elapse  before  the  young  men  get 
to  the  land,  are  to  save  up  anything  to  give  these  young  men  a 
start,  in  the  absence  of  that  increase  of  wages  which  can  only 
come  as  a  consequence  of  the  young  men  having  gone  to  the 
land.  Mr.  George,  however,  has  still  another  resource  in  re- 
serve, and,  when  forced  to  it,  he  trots  it  out, — namely,  that, 
there  being  all  grades  between  the  rich  and  the  very  poor, 
those  having  enough  to  start  themselves  upon  the  land  would 
do  so,  and  the  abjectly  poor,  no  longer  having  them  for  com- 
petitors, would  get  higher  wages.  Of  course  one  might  ask 
why  these  diminutive  capitalists,  who  even  now  can  go  to  the 
land  if  they  choose,  since  there  is  plenty  to  be  had  for  but 
little  more  than  the  asking,  refrain  nevertheless  from  at  once 
relieving  an  over-stocked  labor  market  ;  but  it  would  do  no 
good.  You  see,  you  can't  stump  Henry  George.  He  always 
comes  up  blandly  smiling.  He  knows  he  has  a  ready  tongue 
and  a  facile  pen,  and  on  these  he  relies  to  carry  him  safely 
through  the  mazes  of  unreason. — Liberty,  July  30,  1887. 

The  Providence  People  having  declared  that  "  every  tax  is 
in  the  nature  of  a  tax  to  discourage  industry,"  I  asked  it  if 
that  was  the  reason  why  it  favored  a  tax  on  land  values.  It 
answers  that  it  favors  such  a  tax  because  it  would  discourage 
industry  less  than  any  other  tax,  and  because  some  tax  is 
necessary  in  order  to  govern  people  who  cannot  govern  them- 
selves. In  other  words,  the  People  declares  that  it  is  neces- 
sary to  discourage  industry  in  order  to  suppress  crime.  Did 
it  ever  occur  to  the  People  that  the  discouragement  of  in- 
dustry causes  more  crime  than  it  suppresses,  and  that,  if  in- 
dustry were  not  discouraged,  there  would  be  little  or  no  crime 
to  suppress  ? — Liberty,  October  8,  1887. 

Perhaps  no  feature  of  Henry  George's  scheme  is  so  often 
paraded  before  the  public  as  a  bait  as  the  claim  that  with  a 
tax  levied  on  land  values  all  other  taxes  will  be  abolished. 
But  now  it  is  stated  in  the  St&ndard  that,  if  any  great  fortunes 


LAND   AND  RENT 


remain  after  the  adoption  of  the  land  tax,  it  will  be  "  a  mere 
detail  to  terminate  them  by  a  probate  tax."  This  is  offered 
for  the  benefit  of  those  who  believe  that  interest  no  less  than 
rent  causes  concentration  of  wealth.  To  those  who  fear  the 
effects  upon  home  industry  in  case  of  an  abolition  of  the  tariff 
Mr.  George  hints  that  he  will  be  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  of- 
fering of  bounties  to  home  industries.  To  be  sure,  he  would 
pay  the  bounties  out  of  the  land  tax  ;  but  the  use  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  land  tax  for  a  new  purpose,  after  existing  govern- 
mental expenses  had  been  met,  would  be  equivalent  to  a  new 
tax.  So  we  already  have  three  taxes  in  sight  where  there  was 
to  be  but  one, — the  land  tax,  the  probate  tax,  and  the  bounty 
tax.  Presently,  as  new  necessities  arise,  a  fourth  will  loom  up, 
and  a  fifth,  and  a  sixth.  Thus  the  grand  work  of  H  simplify- 
ing government  "  goes  on. — Liberty,  November  5,  1887. 

"  What  gives  value  to  land  ?  "  asks  Rev.  Hugh  O.  Pentecost. 
And  he  answers  :  "  The  presence  of  population — the  com- 
munity. Then  rent,  or  the  value  of  land,  morally  belongs  to 
the  community."  What  gives  value  to  Mr.  Pentecost's  preach- 
ing ?  The  presence  of  population — the  community.  Then 
Mr.  Pentecost's  salary,  or  the  value  of  his  preaching,  morally 
belongs  to  the  community. — Liberty,  August  18,  1888. 


SOCIALISM. 


SOCIALISM  :  WHAT  IT  IS. 


{Liberty,  May  17,  1884.] 

"Do  you  like  the  word  Socialism  ?"  said  a  lady  to  me  the 
other  day  ;  "  I  fear  I  do  not ;  somehow  I  shrink  when  I  hear 
it.  It  is  associated  with  so  much  that  is  bad  !  Ought  we  to 
keep  it  ? " 

The  lady  who  asked  this  question  is  an  earnest  Anarchist,  a 
firm  friend  of  Liberty,  and— it  is  almost  superfluous  to  add- 
highly  intelligent.  Her  words  voice  the  feeling  of  many.  But 
after  all  it  is  only  a  feeling,  and  will  not  stand  the  test  of 
thought.  "Yes,"  I  answered,  "it  is  a  glorious  word,  much 
abused,  violently  distorted,  stupidly  misunderstood,  but  ex- 
pressing better  than  any  other  the  purpose  of  political  and 
economic  progress,  the  aim  of  the  Revolution  in  this  century, 
the  recognition  of  the  great  truth  that  Liberty  and  Equality, 
through  the  law  of  Solidarity,  will  cause  the  welfare  of  each 
to  contribute  to  the  welfare  of  all.  So  good  a  word  cannot 
be  spared,  must  not  be  sacrified,  shall  not  be  stolen." 

How  can  it  be  saved  ?  Only  by  lifting  it  out  of  the  con- 
fusion which  obscures  it,  so  that  all  may  see  it  clearly  and 
definitely,  and  what  it  fundamentally  means.  Some  writers 
make  Socialism  inclusive  of  all  efforts  to  ameliorate  social  con- 
ditions. Proudhon  is  reputed  to  have  said  something  of  the 
kind.  However  that  may  be,  the  definition  seems  too  broad. 
Etymologically  it  is  not  unwarrantable,  but  derivatively  the 
word  has  a  more  technical  and  definite  meaning. 

To-day  (pardon  the  paradox  !)  society  is  fundamentally 
anti-social.  The  whole  so-called  social  fabric  rests  on  privi- 
lege and  power,  and  is  disordered  and  strained  in  every  direc- 
tion by  the  inequalities  that  necessarily  result  therefrom.  The 
welfare  of  each,  instead  of  contributing  to  that  of  all,  as  it 
naturally  should  and  would,  almost  invariably  detracts  from 
that  of  all.  Wealth  is  made  by  legal  privilege  a  hook  with 
which  to  filch  from  labor's  pockets.  Every  man  who  gets  rich 
thereby  makes  his  neighbor  poor.  The  better  off  one  is,  the 
worse  off  the  rest  are.  As  Ruskin  says,  "  every  grain  of  cal- 
culated Increment  to  the  rich  is  balanced  by  its  mathematical 

361 


362 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


equivalent  of  Decrement  to  the  poor."  The  Laborer's  Deficit 
is  precisely  equal  to  the  Capitalist's  Efficit. 

Now,  Socialism  wants  to  change  all  this.  Socialism  says 
that  what's  one  man's  meat  must  no  longer  be  another's  poi- 
son ;  that  no  man  shall  be  able  to  add  to  his  riches  except 
by  labor  ;  that  in  adding  to  his  riches  by  labor  alone  no  man 
makes  another  man  poorer  ;  that  on  the  contrary  every  man 
thus  adding  to  his  riches  makes  every  other  man  richer  ;  that 
increase  and  concentration  of  wealth  through  labor  tend  to  in- 
crease, cheapen,  and  vary  production  ;  that  every  increase  of 
capital  in  the  hands  of  the  laborer  tends,  in  the  absence  of 
legal  monopoly,  to  put  more  products,  better  products,  cheaper 
products,  and  a  greater  variety  of  products  within  the  reach 
of  every  man  who  works;  and  that  this  fact  means  the  physical, 
mental,  and  moral  perfecting  of  mankind,  and  the  realization 
of  human  fraternity.  Is  not  that  glorious  ?  Shall  a  word 
that  means  all  that  be  cast  aside  simply  because  some  have 
tried  to  wed  it  with  authority  ?  By  no  means.  The  man  who 
subscribes  to  that,  whatever  he  may  think  himself,  whatever 
he  may  call  himself,  however  bitterly  he  may  attack  the  thing 
which  he  mistakes  for  Socialism,  is  himself  a  Socialist ;  and 
the  man  who  subscribes  to  its  opposite  and  acts  upon  its  op- 
posite, however  benevolent  he  may  be,  however  wealthy  he 
may  be,  however  pious  he  may  be,  whatever  his  station  in 
society,  whatever  his  standing  in  the  Church,  whatever  his 
position  in  the  State,  is  not  a  Socialist,  but  a  Thief.  For  there 
are  at  bottom  but  two  classes, — the  Socialists  and  the  Thieves. 
Socialism,  practically,  is  war  upon  usury  in  all  its  forms,  the 
great  Anti-Theft  Movement  of  the  nineteenth  century ;  and 
Socialists  are  the  only  people  to  whom  the  preachers  of 
morality  have  no  right  or  occasion  to  cite  the  eighth  com- 
mandment, "Thou  shalt  not  steal  !"  That  commandment  is 
Socialism's  flag.  Only  not  as  a  commandment,  but  as  a  law  of 
nature.  Socialism  does  not  order ;  it  prophesies.  It  does 
not  say  :  "  Thou  shalt  not  steal!"  It  says  :  "  When  all  men 
have  Liberty,  thou  wilt  not  steal." 

Why,  then,  does  my  lady  questioner  shrink  when  she  hears 
the  word  Socialism  ?  I  will  tell  her.  Because  a  large  number 
of  people,  who  see  the  evils  of  usury  and  are  desirous  of  de- 
stroying them,  foolishly  imagine  they  can  do  so  by  authority, 
and  accordingly  are  trying  to  abolish  privilege  by  centring 
all  production  and  activity  in  the  State  to  the  destruction  of 
competition  and  its  blessings,  to  the  degradation  of  the  indi- 
vidual, and  to  the  putrefaction  of  Society.  They  are  well- 
meaning  but  misguided  people,  and  their  efforts  are  bound  to 


SOCIALISM. 


363 


prove  abortive.  Their  influence  is  mischievous  principally  in 
this  :  that  a  large  number  of  other  people,  who  have  not  yet 
seen  the  evils  of  usury  and  do  not  know  that  Liberty  will 
destroy  them,'  but  nevertheless  earnestly  believe  in  Liberty  for 
Liberty's  sake,  are  led  to  mistake  this  effort  to  make  the  State 
the  be-all  and  end-all  of  society  for  the  whole  of  Socialism 
and  the  only  Socialism,  and,  rightly  horrified  at  it,  to  hold  it 
up  as  such  to  the  deserved  scorn  of  mankind.  But  the  very 
reasonable  and  just  criticisms  of  the  individualists  of  this 
stripe  upon  State  Socialism,  when  analyzed,  are  found  to  be 
directed,  not  against  the  Socialism,  but  against  the  State.  So 
far  Liberty  is  with  them.  But  Liberty  insists  on  Socialism, 
nevertheless, — on  true  Socialism,  Anarchistic  Socialism  :  the 
prevalence  on  earth  of  Liberty,  Equality,  and  Solidarity.  From 
that  my  lady  questioner  will  never  shrink. 


ARMIES  THAT  OVERLAP. 

[Liberty,  March  8,  1890.] 

Of  late  the  Twentieth  Century  has  been  doing  a  good  deal 
in  the  way  of  definition.  Now,  definition  is  very  particular 
business,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  not  always  performed 
with  due  care  in  the  Twentieth  Century  office. 

Take  this,  for  instance  :  A  Socialist  is  "  one  who  believes 
that  each  industry  should  be  co-ordinated  for  the  mutual  bene- 
fit of  all  concerned  under  a  government  by  physical  force." 

It  is  true  that  writers  of  reputation  have  given  definitions 
of  Socialism  not  differing  in  any  essential  from  the  foregoing, 
— among  others,  General  Walker.  But  it  has  been  elaborately 
proven  in  these  columns  that  General  Walker  is  utterly  at  sea 
•when  he  talks  about  either  Socialism  or  Anarchism.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  this  definition  is  fundamentally  faulty,  and  cor- 
rectly defines  only  State  Socialism. 

An  analogous  definition  in  another  sphere  would  be  this  : 
Religion  is  belief  in  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  Supposing  this 
to  be  a  correct  definition  of  the  Christian  religion,  none  the 
less  it  is  manifestly  incorrect  as  a  definition  of  religion  itself. 
The  fact  that  Christianity  has  overshadowed  all  other  forms 
of  religion  in  this  part  of  the  world  gives  it  no  right  to  a  mo- 
nopoly of  the  religious  idea.  Similarly,  the  fact  that  State 
Socialism  during  the  last  decade  or  two  has  overshadowed 


3^4 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


other  forms  of  Socialism  gives  it  no  right  to  a  monopoly  of  the 

Socialistic  idea. 

Socialism,  as  such,  implies  neither  liberty  nor  authority. 
The  word  itself  implies  nothing  more  than  hartnonious  rela- 
tionship. In  fact,  it  is  so  broad  a  term  that  it  is  difficult  of 
definition.  I  certainly  lay  claim  to  no  special  authority  or 
competence  in  the  matter.  I  simply  maintain  that  the  word 
Socialism  having  been  applied  for  years,  by  common  usage 
and  consent,  as  a  generic  term  to  various  schools  of  thought 
and  opinion,  those  who  try  to  define  it  are  bound  to  seek  the 
common  element  of  all  these  schools  and  make  it  stand  for 
that,  and  have  no  business  to  make  it  represent  the  specific 
nature  of  any  one  of  them.  The  Twentieth  Century  definition 
will  not  stand  this  test  at  all. 

Perhaps  here  is  one  that  satisfies  it  :  Socialism  is  the  belief 
that  progress  is  mainly  to  be  effected  by  acting  ,  upon  man 
through  his  environment  rather  than  through  man  upon  his 
environment. 

I  fancy  that  this  will  be  criticised  as  too  general,  and  I  am 
inclined  to  accept  the  criticism.  It  manifestly  includes  all 
who  have  any  title  to  be  called  Socialists,  but  possibly  it  does 
not  exclude  all  who  have  no  such  title. 

Let  us  narrow  it  a  little  :  Socialism  is  the  belief  that  the 
next  important  step  in  progress  is  a  change  in  man's  environ- 
ment of  an  economic  character  that  shall  include  the  abolition 
of  every  privilege  whereby  the  holder  of  wealth  acquires  an 
anti-social  power  to  compel  tribute. 

I  doubt  not  that  this  definition  can  be  much  improved,  and 
suggestions  looking  to  that  end  will  be  interesting  ;  but  it  is 
at  least  an  attempt  to  cover  all  the  forms  of  protest  against 
the  existing  usurious  economic  system.  I  have  always  con- 
sidered myself  a  member  of  the  great  body  of  Socialists,  and 
I  object  to  being  read  out  of  it  or  defined  out  of  it  by  General 
Walker,  Mr.  Pentecost,  or  anybody  else,  simply  because  I  am 
not  a  follower  of  Karl  Marx. 

Take  now  another  Twentieth  Century  definition, — that  of 
Anarchism.  I  have  not  the  number  of  the  paper  in  which  it 
was  given,  and  cannot  quote  it  exactly.  But  it  certainly  made 
belief  in  co-operation  an  essential  of  Anarchism.  This  is  as 
erroneous  as  the  definition  of  Socialism.  Co-operation  is  no 
more  an  essential  of  Anarchism  than  force  is  of  Socialism. 
The  fact  that  the  majority  of  Anarchists  believe  in  co-oper- 
ation is  not  what  makes  them  Anarchists,  just  as  the  fact  that 
the  majority  of  Socialists  believe  in  force  is  not  what  makes 
them  Socialists.    Socialism  is  neither  for  nor  against  liberty  ; 


SOCIALISM. 


365 


Anarchism  is  for  liberty,  and  neither  for  nor  against  anything 
else.  Anarchy  is  the  mother  of  co-operation, — yes,  just  as 
liberty  is  the  mother  of  order ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  definition, 
liberty  is  not  order  nor  is  Anarchism  co-operation. 

I  define  Anarchism  as  the  belief  in  the  greatest  amount 
of  liberty  compatible  with  equality  of  liberty  ;  or,  in  other 
words,  as  the  belief  in  every  liberty  except  the  liberty  to 
invade. 

It  will  be  observed  that,  according  to  the  Twentieth  Century 
definitions,  Socialism  excludes  Anarchists,  while,  according 
to  Liberty's  definitions,  a  Socialist  may  or  may  not  be  an  An- 
archist, and  an  Anarchist  may  or  may  not  be  a  Socialist. 
Relaxing  scientific  exactness,  it  may  be  said,  briefly  and 
broadly,  that  Socialism  is  a  battle  with  usury  and  that  Anar- 
chism is  a  battle  with  authority.  The  two  armies — Socialism 
and  Anarchism — are  neither  coextensive  nor  exclusive  ;  but 
they  overlap.  The  right  wing  of  one  is  the  left  wing  of  the 
other.  The  virtue  and  superiority  of  the  Anarchistic  Social- 
ist— or  Socialistic  Anarchist,  as  he  may  prefer  to  call  himself 
— lies  in  the  fact  that  he  fights  in  the  wing  that  is  common  to 
both.  Of  course  there  is  a  sense  in  which  every  Anarchist  may 
be  said  to  be  a  Socialist  virtually,  inasmuch  as  usury  rests 
on  authority,  and  to  destroy  the  latter  is  to  destroy  the  former. 
But  it  scarcely  seems  proper  to  give  the  name  Socialist  to  one 
who  is  such  unconsciously,  neither  desiring,  intending,  nor 
knowing  it. 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  LEXICOGRAPHERS. 

[Liberty,  January  30,  1892.] 

Liberty  is  informed  that  the  Collectivists  expect  to  prove 
their  claim  to  a  monopoly  of  the  name  Socialism  by  refer- 
ence to  the  Century  Dictionary  as  an  indisputable  authority. 
They  will  find  that  the  Anarchistic  Socialists  are  not  to  be 
stripped  of  one  half  of  their  title  by  the  mere  dictum  of  the 
last  lexicographer.  If  the  dictionary-makers  were  in  sub- 
stantial agreement  in  making  Socialism  exclusive  of  Anar- 
chism, the  demand  that  Anarchists  should  cease  to  call  them- 
selves Socialists  might  be  made  with  some  grace.  But  that 
there  is  no  approach  to  unanimity  among  them  on  this  point 
will  be  seen  from  the  following  definitions  of  Socialism  taken 
from  various  cyclopaedias  and  dictionaries,  for  the  compilation 


366 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


of  which  Liberty  is  largely  indebted  to  the  industry  of  Com- 
rade Trinkaus. 

Stormonttis  Dictionary  of  the  English  Language  l 

That  system  which  has  for  its  object  the  reconstruction  of  society  on 
the  basis  of  a  community  of  property,  and  association  instead  of  compe- 
tition in  every  branch  of  human  industry  ;  communion. 

Worcester  : 

The  science  of  reconstructing  society  on  entirely  new  bases,  by  sub- 
stituting the  principle  of  association  for  that  of  competition  in  every  branch 
of  human  industry. 

In  the  various  forms  under  which  society  has  existed,  private  property, 
individual  industry  and  enterprise,  and  the  right  of  marriage  and  the  fam- 
ily have  been  recognized.  Of  late  years  several  schemes  of  social  ar- 
rangement have  been  proposed,  in  which  one  or  all  of  these  principles 
have  been  abandoned  or  modified.  These  schemes  may  be  comprehended 
under  the  general  term  Socialism. 

Allgemeine  deutsche  Real-Encyklopadie : 

The  body  of  teachings  developed  into  a  system  which  aim  at  removing 
the  evils  of  existing  society  by  the  establishment  of  a  social  order  based 
on  a  new  distribution  of  wealth,  labor,  and  industry,  and  thereby  creating 
the  lasting  welfare  of  all,  but  especially  of  the  classes  without  capital, 
within  a  general  grand  development  of  humanity. 

Globe  Encyclopcedia  : 

A  term  which  is  practically  synonymous  with  Communism,  though, 
strictly  speaking,  there  is  distinction  between  the  two  words,  which  is  ex- 
plained in  the  article  "  Communism." 

Communism  means  the  negation  of  private  property  ;  it  describes  a 
society  in  which  the  land  and  instruments  of  production  would  be  held  as 
joint  property  and  used  for  the  common  account,  industry  being  regulated 
by  a  magistrate,  and  the  produce  being  publicly  divided  in  equal  shares, 
or  according  to  wants,  or  on  some  other  principle  of  distributive  justice. 

Socialism  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  abolition  of  private  property  ; 
it  merely  insists  .  .  .  that  the  land  and  instruments  of  production 
should  be  the  property  of  the  association  or  government. 

Webster  : 

A  theory  or  system  of  social  reform  which  contemplates  a  complete 
rtconstruction  of  society,  with  a  more  just  and  equitable  distribution  of 
labor. 

Encyclopedia  Americana  : 

Socialism,  in  general,  may  be  described  as  that  movement  which  seeks 
by  economic  changes  to  destroy  the  existing  inequalities  of  the  world's 
social  conditions.  .  .  .  Into  all  Socialistic  schemes  the  idea  of  govern- 
mental change  enters,  with  this  radical  difference,  however  :  some  Social- 
ists rely  upon  the  final  abolition  of  existing  forms  of  government  and  seek 
the  establishment  of  a  pure  democracy,  while  others  insist  upon  giving  to 
government  a  paternal  form,  thus  increasing  its  function  instead  of  dimin- 
ishing it. 


SOCIALISM. 


367 


Encyclopedia  Britannica  : 

A  new  form  of  social  organization,  based  on  a  fundamental  change  in  the 
economic  order  of  society.  Socialists  believe  that  the  present  economic 
order,  in  which  industry  is  carried  on  by  private  competitive  capital,  must 
and  ought  to  pass  away,  and  that  the  normal  economic  order  of  the  future 
will  be  one  with  collective  means  of  production  and  associated  labor 
working  for  the  general  good.  [The  "Britannica,"  in  the  same  article, 
cataloguing  the  varieties  of  Socialism,  includes  in  the  list  Anarchism,  of 
which  it  calls  Proudhon  the  acknowledged  father.] 

Meyer  s  Konversations-Lexicon  : 

Literally  a  system  of  social  organization,  commonly  a  designation  for  all 
those  teachings  and  aspirations  which  contemplate  a  radical  change  of  the 
existing  social  and  economical  order,  in  favor  of  a  new  order  more  in 
harmony  with  the  requirements  of  the  general  welfare  and  the  sense  of 
justice  than  the  existing  order. 

Sanders  s  Worterbuch  der  deidscher  Sprache  : 

A  system  according  to  which  civil  society  is  to  be  founded  on  the  com- 
munity of  labor  and  the  proportional  distribution  of  the  product. 

Johnson  s  Universal  Cyclopedia  : 

Socialism  holds  an  intermediate  position  between  pure  Communism 
and  simple  co-operation.  Unlike  Communism,  it  does  not  advocate  the  ab- 
solute abolition  of  property,  but  aims  simply  at  a  more  just  and  equitable 
distribution  of  it.  Every  man  according  to  his  capacity,  and  every  capac- 
ity according  to  its  work,  is  the  great  maxim  laid  down  by  Saint  Simon, 
and  to  carry  out  this  maxim  is  the  great  goal  of  all  Socialistic  movements. 

Chambers's  Encyclopedia  : 

The  name  given  to  a  class  of  opinions  opposed  to  the  present  organiza- 
tion of  society,  and  which  seeks  to  introduce  a  new  distribution  of  prop- 
erty and  labor,  in  which  organized  co-operation  rather  than  competition 
should  be  the  dominating  principle. 

American  Cyclopedia  : 

The  doctrine  that  society  ought  to  be  organized  on  more  harmonious 
and  equitable  principles.  Communism  and  co-operation  are  its  principal 
divisions  or  varieties.  Communism  and  Socialism  are  sometimes  used  as 
synonymous  ;  but  generally  the  former  term  refers  to  the  plans  of  social 
reform  based  on  or  embracing  the  doctrine  of  a  complete  community  of 
goods.  Co-operation  is  understood  to  be  that  branch  of  Socialism  which 
is  engaged  exclusively  with  theories  of  labor  and  methods  of  distributing 
profits,  and  which  advocates  a  combination  of  many  to  gain  advantages 
not  to  be  realized  by  individuals.  Viewed  as  a  whole,  Socialistic  doctrines 
have  dealt  with  everything  that  enters  into  the  life  of  the  individual,  the 
family,  the  Church,  or  the  State,  whether  industrially,  morally,  or  spir- 
itually. 

Universal  Cyclopedia  : 

A  system  which,  in  opposition  to  the  competitive  system  at  present 
prevailing,  seeks  to  reorganize  society  on  the  basis,  in  the  main,  of  a 


368  INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 

f 

certain  secularism  in  religion^  of  community  of  interest,  and  in  co-oper- 
ation in  labor  for  the  commqn  good. 

Blackies  Modern  Cyclopedia  : 

The  name  applied  to  various  theories  of  social  organization,  having  for 
their  common  aim  the  abolition  of  that  individual  action  on  which 
modern  societies  depend,  and  the  substitution  of  a  regulated  system  of 
co-operative  action.  The  word  Socialism,  which  originated  among  the 
English  Communists,  and  was  assumed  by  them  to  designate  their  own 
doctrines,  is  now  employed  in  a  larger  sense,  not  necessarily  implying 
communism,  or  the  entire  abolition  of  private  property,  but  applied  to 
any  system  which  requires  that  the  land  and  the  instruments  of  produc- 
tion shall  be  the  property  not  of  individuals,  but  of  communities,  or 
associations,  with  the  view  to  an  equitable  distribution  of  the  products. 

Lalor's  Cyclopedia  of  Political  Science  : 

An  analysis  of  this  word  may  be  reduced  to  this:  In  every  human 
society,  whether  it  advances  or  retrogrades,  modifications  more  or  less 
profound  are  always  going  on, — modifications  which  are  more  or  less 
perceptible,  and  whiqh,  with  or  without  the  knowledge  of  such  society, 
act  upon  its  economy.  Apparently  such  a  society  remains  the  same; 
but  in  reality  it  is  daily  affected  by  changes  of  which  it  becomes  entirely 
conscious  only  after/ time  has  fixed  them  in  the  habits  and  customs  of  the 
people,  and  marked  them  by  its  sanction.  This  is  the  course  of  civili- 
zations which  are  being  perfected,  or  which  are  declining.  The  honor  of 
a  generation  is  to  add  something  to  the  inheritance  it  has  received,  and 
to  transmit  it  improved  to  the  generation  which  comes  after  it.  To  em- 
ploy what  has  been  acquired  as  an  instrument  of  new  acquisition,  to  ad- 
vance from  the  verified  to  the  unknown, — such  is  the  idea  of  progress  as 
it  presents  itself  to  well-ordered  minds.  But  such  is  not  the  idea  of  the 
Socialists.  In  their  eyes  the  situation  given  is  a  false  one,  and  the  pro- 
cess too  simple.  Reforms  in  detail  do  not  seem  to  them  worthy  of  at- 
tention. They  have  plans  of  their  own,  the  first  condition  of  which  is  to 
make  a  tabula  rasa  of  everything  that  exists,  to  cast  aside  existing  laws, 
manners,  customs,  and  all  the  guarantees  of  personal  property.  It  seems 
to  them  that  we  have  lived  thus  far  under  the  empire  of  a  misconception, 
which  it  is  urgent  should  cease;  our  globe,  according  to  them,  is  an 
anticipated  hell,  and  our  civilization  a  coarse  outline  only.  What  is  the 
remedy  ?  There  is  only  one, — to  try  the  treatment  of  which  the  Social- 
ists hold  the  secret.  That  treatment  varies  according  to  the  sect.  There 
are  Socialists  with  mild  remedies  and  Socialists  with  violent  remedies  ; 
the  only  difficulty  is  in  the  choice.  But,  with  all  their  differences,  there 
is  one  point  on  which  they  agree, — the  formal  condemnation  of  human 
societies  as  they  are  at  present  constituted,  and  the  necessity  of  erecting 
on  the  ruins  an  order  of  things  more  conformable  to  the  instincts  of  man 
and  to  his  destiny  here  below. 

Century  Dictionary  : 

Any  theory  or  system  of  social  organization  which  would  abolish, 
entirely  or  in  great  part,  the  individual  effort  and  competition  on  which 
modern  society  rests,  and  substitute  for  it  co-operative  action,  would 
introduce  a  more  perfect  and  equal  distribution  of  the  products  of  labor, 
and  would  make  land  and  capital,  as  the  instruments  and  means  of  pro- 
duction, the  joint  possession  of  the  members  of  the  community. 


SOCIALISM. 


Lit  (re's  Dictionary  of  the  French  Language  : 

A  system  which,  subordinating  political  reforms,  offers  a  plan  of  social 
reforms.  Communism,  Mutualism,  Saint-Simonism,  Fourierism,  are  So- 
cialisms. 

Poitevin : 

A  political  doctrine  tending  to  establish  e'galitaire  association  as  the 
basis  of  government. 

Dictionary  of  the  French  Academy  : 

The  doctrine  of  those  who  desire  to  change  the  condition  of  society  and 
reconstruct  it  on  an  entirely  new  plan. 

Cassell  6°  Co.'s  Encyclopedic  Dictionary  (1887): 
Scientific  Socialism  embraces  : 

(1)  Collectivism  :  An  ideal  Socialistic  state  of  society,  in  which  the 
functions  of  the  government  will  include  the  organization  of  all  the  in- 
dustries of  the  country.  In  a  Collectivist  State  every  person  would  be  a 
State  official,  and  the  State  would  be  coextensive  with  the  whole  people. 

(2)  Anarchism  (meaning  mistrust  of  government  and  not  abandonment 
of  social  order)  would  secure  individual  liberty  against  encroachment  on 
the  part  of  the  State  in  the  Socialistic  commonwealth.  They  are  divided 
into  Mutualists,  who  hope  to  attain  their  ends  by  banks  of  exchange  and 
free  currency,  and  Communists,  whose  motto  is,  "  From  every  man  ac- 
cording to  his  capacity,  to  every  man  according  to  his  needs." 

From  this  interesting  assortment  of  broad-gauge  and  narrow- 
gauge  definitions  the  Anarchists  can  glean  as  much  encourage- 
ment as  the  Collectivists.  None  of  them  are  authoritative. 
The  makers  of  dictionaries  are  dependent  upon  specialists 
for  their  definitions.  A  specialist's  definition  may  be  true  or 
it  may  be  erroneous.  But  its  truth  cannot  be  increased  or 
its  error  diminished  by  its  acceptance  by  the  lexicographer. 
Each  definition  must  stand  on  its  own  merits.  With  this  re- 
mark as  a  preface,  I  offer  once  more  the  definition  of  Social- 
ism which  I  printed  in  these  columns  nearly  two  years  ago,  and 
am  willing  to  leave  it  to  the  reader  whether  it  meets  the  re- 
quirements of  a  scientific  definition  more  or  less  satisfactorily 
than  the  definitions  in  the  dictionaries  : 

"  Socialism  is  the  belief  that  the  next  important  step  in 
progress  is  a  change  in  man's  environment  of  an  economic 
character  that  shall  include  the  abolition  of  every  privilege 
whereby  the  holder  of  wealth  acquires  an  anti-social  power  to 
compel  tribute," 


70  INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


THE  SIN  OF  HERBERT  SPENCER. 

[Liberty,  May  17,  1884.] 

Liberty  welcomes  and  criticises  in  the  same  breath  the  series 
of  papers  by  Herbert  Spencer  on  "  The  New  Toryism,"  "  The 
Coming  Slavery,"  "  The  Sins  of  Legislators,"  etc.,  now  running 
in  the  Popular  Science  Monthly  and  the  English  Contemporary 
Review.  They  are  very  true,  very  important,  and  very  mis- 
leading. They  are  true  for  the  most  part  in  what  they  say, 
and  false  and  misleading  in  what  they  fail  to  say.  Mr.  Spencer 
convicts  legislators  of  undeniable  and  enormous  sins  in  med- 
dling with  and  curtailing  and  destroying  the  people's  rights. 
Their  sins  are  sins  of  commission.  But  Mr.  Spencer's  sin  of 
omission  is  quite  as  grave.  He  is  one  of  those  persons  who 
are  making  a  wholesale  onslaught  on  Socialism  as  the  incar- 
nation of  the  doctrine  of  State  omnipotence  carried  to  its 
highest  power.  And  I  am  not  sure  that  he  is  quite  honest  in 
this.  I  begin  to  be  a  little  suspicious  of  him.  It  seems  as  if 
he  had  forgotten  the  teachings  of  his  earlier  writings,  and  had 
become  a  champion  of  the  capitalistic  class.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  in  these  later  articles,  amid  his  multitudinous  illustrations 
(of  which  he  is  as  prodigal  as  ever)  of  the  evils  of  legislation, 
he  in  every  instance  cites  some  law  passed,  ostensibly  at  least, 
to  protect  labor,  alleviate  suffering,  or  promote  the  people's 
welfare.  He  demonstrates  beyond  dispute  the  lamentable 
failure  in  this  direction.  But  never  once  does  he  call  attention 
to  the  far  more  deadly  and  deep-seated  evils  growing  out  of 
the  innumerable  laws  creating  privilege  and  sustaining  monop- 
oly. You  must  not  protect  the  weak  against  the  strong,  he 
seems  to  say,  but  freely  supply  all  the  weapons  needed  by  the 
strong  to  oppress  the  weak.  He  is  greatly  shocked  that  the 
rich  should  be  directly  taxed  to  support  the  poor,  but  that  the 
poor  should  be  indirectly  taxed  and  bled  to  make  the  rich 
richer  does  not  outrage  his  delicate  sensibilities  in  the  least. 
Poverty  is  increased  by  the  poor  laws,  says  Mr.  Spencer. 
Granted  ;  but  what  about  the  rich  laws  that  caused  and  still 
cause  the  poverty  to  which  the  poor  laws  add  ?  That  is  by  far 
the  more  important  question  ;  yet  Mr.  Spencer  tries  to  blink 
it  out  of  sight. 

A  very  acute  criticism  of  Mr.  Spencer's  position  has  been 
made  recently  before  the  Manhattan  Liberal  Club  by  Stephen 
Pearl  Andrews.  He  shows  that  Mr.  Spencer  is  not  the  radical 
laissez  faire  philosopher  which  he  pretends  to  be  ;  that  the 


SOCIALISM. 


37* 


only  true  believers  in  laissez  faire  are  the  Anarchists  ;  that  in- 
dividualism must  be  supplemented  by  the  doctrines  of  equity 
and  courtesy  ;  and  that,  while  State  Socialism  is  just  as  dan- 
gerous and  tyrannical  as  Mr.  Spencer  pictures  it,  "  there  is  a 
higher  and  nobler  form  of  Socialism  which  is  not  only  not 
slavery,  but  which  is  our  only  means  of  rescue  from  all  sorts 
and  degrees  of  slavery."  All  this  is  straight  to  the  mark,— tell- 
ing thrusts,  which  Mr.  Spencer  can  never  parry. 

But  the  English  philosopher  is  doing  good,  after  all.  His 
disciples  are  men  of  independent  mind,  more  numerous  every 
day,  who  accept  his  fundamental  truths  and  carry  them  to 
their  logical  conclusions.  A  notable  instance  is  Auberon 
Herbert,  formerly  a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons,  but 
now  retired  from  political  life.  While  an  enthusiastic  adhe- 
rent of  the  Spencerian  philosophy,  he  is  fast  outstripping  his 
master.  In  a  recent  essay  entitled  "A  Politician  in  Sight  of 
Haven,"  written,  as  the  London  Spectator  says,  with  an  un- 
surpassable charm  of  style,  Mr.  Herbert  explodes  the  majority 
lie,  ridicules  physical  force  as  a  solution  of  social  problems, 
strips  government  of  every  function  except  the  police,  and  rec- 
ognizes even  that  only  as  an  evil  of  brief  necessity,  and  in 
conclusion  proposes  the  adoption  of  voluntary  taxation  with  a 
calmness  and  confidence  which  must  have  taken  Mr.  Spencer's 
breath  away.  To  be  sure,  Mr.  Herbert  is  as  violent  as  his 
master  against  Socialism,  but  in  his  case  only  because  he 
honestly  supposes  that  compulsory  Socialism  is  the  only 
Socialism,  and  not  at  all  from  any  sympathy  with  legal  mo- 
nopoly or  capitalistic  privilege  in  any  form. 


WILL  PROFESSOR  SUMNER  CHOOSE? 

{Liberty,  November  14,  1885.] 

Professor  Sumner,  who  occupies  the  chair  of  political 
economy  at  Yale,  addressed  last  Sunday  the  New  Haven 
Equal  Rights  Debating  Club.  He  told  the  State  Socialists 
and  Communists  of  that  city  much  wholesome  truth.  But,  as 
far  as  I  can  learn  from  the  newspaper  reports,  which  may  of 
course  have  left  out,  as  usual,  the  most  important  things  that 
the  speaker  said,  he  made  no  discrimination  in  his  criticisms. 
He  appears  to  have  entirely  ignored  the  fact  that  the  Anar- 
chistic Socialists  are  the  most  unflinching  champions  in  exist- 


372 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


ence  of  his  own  pet  principle  of  laissez  faire.  He  branded 
Socialism  as  the  summit  of  absurdity,  utterly  failing  to  note 
that  one  great  school  of  Socialism  says  "Amen  "  whenever  he 
scolds  government  for  invading  the  individual,  and  only  regrets 
that  he  doesn't  scold  it  oftener  and  more  uniformly. 

Referring  to  Karl  Marx's  position  that  the  employee  is 
forced  to  give  up  a  part  of  his  product  to  the  employer  (which, 
by  the  way,  was  Proudhon's  position  before  it  was  Marx's,  and 
Josiah  Warren's  before  it  was  Proudhon's),  Professor  Sumner 
asked  why  the  employee  does  not,  then,  go  to  work  for  him- 
self, and  answered  the  question  very  truthfully  by  saying  that 
it  is  because  he  has  no  capital.  But  he  did  not  proceed  to  tell 
why  he  has  no  capital  and  how  he  can  get  some.  Yet  this  is 
the  vital  point  in  dispute  between  Anarchism  and  privilege, 
between  Socialism  and  so-called  political  economy.  He  did 
indeed  recommend  the  time-dishonored  virtues  of  industry 
and  economy  as  a  means  of  getting  capital,  but  every  observ- 
ing person  knows  that  the  most  industrious  and  economical 
persons  are  precisely  the  ones  who  have  no  capital  and  can 
get  none.  Industry  and  economy  will  begin  to  accumulate 
capital  when  idleness  and  extravagance  lose  their  power  to 
steal  it,  and  not  before. 

Professor  Sumner  also  told  Herr  Most  and  his  followers 
that  their  proposition  to  have  the  employee  get  capital  by 
forcible  seizure  is  the  most  short-sighted  economic  measure 
possible  to  conceive  of.  Here  again  he  is  entirely  wise  and 
sound.  Not  that  there  may  not  be  circumstances  when  such 
seizure  would  be  advisable  as  a  political,  war,  or  terroristic 
measure  calculated  to  induce  political  changes  that  will  give 
freedom  to  natural  economic  processes  ;  but  as  a  directly  eco- 
nomic measure  it  must  always  and  inevitably  be,  not  only 
futile,  but  reactionary.  In  opposition  to  all  arbitrary  distri- 
bution I  stand  with  Professor  Sumner  with  all  my  heart  and 
mind.    And  so  does  every  logical  Anarchist. 

But,  if  the  employee  cannot  at  present  get  capital  by  in- 
dustry and  economy,  and  if  it  will  do  him  no  good  to  get  it  by 
torce,  how  is  he  to  get  it  wTith  benefit  to  himself  and  injury  to 
no  other?  Why  don't  you  tell  us  that,  Professor  Sumner? 
You  did,  to  be  sure,  send  a  stray  shot  somewhere  near  the 
mark  when,  in  answer  to  a  question  why  shoemakers  have  no 
shoes,  you  said  that,  where  such  a  condition  of  things  pre- 
vailed, it  was  due  to  some  evil  work  of  the  government, — said 
evil  work  being  manifest  at  present  in  the  currency  and  taxa- 
tion.   But  what  is  the  precise  nature  of  the  evils  thus  mani- 


/ 


socialism.  373 

fest  ?  Tell  me  that  definitely,  and  then  I  will  tell  you  whe  r 
you  are  a  consistent  man. 

I  fancy  that,  if  I  should  ask  you  what  the  great  evil  in  our 
taxation  is,  you  would  answer  that  it  is  the  protective  tariff. 
Now,  the  protective  tariff  is  an  evil  certainly,  and  an  outrage; 
but,  so  far  as  it  affects  the  power  of  the  laborer  to  accumulate 
capital,  it  is  a  comparatively  small  one.  In  fact,  its  abolition, 
unaccompanied  by  the  abolition  of  the  banking  monopoly, 
would  take  away  from  very,  large  classes  of  laborers  not  only 
what  little  chance  they  nOw  have  of  getting  capital,  but  also 
their  power  of  sustaining  the  lives  of  themselves  and  their 
families.  The  amount  abstracted  from  labor's  pockets  by  the 
protective  tariff  and  by  all  other  methods  of  getting  govern- 
mental revenue  is  simply  one  of  the  smaller  drains  on  industry. 
The  amount  of  capital  which  it  is  thus  prevented  from  getting 
will  hardly  be  worth  considering  until  the  larger  drains  are 
stopped.  As  far  as  taxation  goes,  the  great  evils  involved  in  it 
are  to  be  found,  not  in  the  material  damage  done  to  labor  by 
a  loss  of  earnings,  but  in  the  assumption  of  the  right  to  take 
men's  property  without  their  consent,  and  in  the  use  of  this 
property  to  pay  the  salaries  of  the  officials  through  whom,  and 
the  expenses  of  the  machine  through  which,  labor  is  oppressed 
and  ground  down.  Are  you  heroic  enough,  Professor  Sumner, 
to  adopt  this  application  of  laissez  f aire  2  I  summon  you  to 
it  under  penalty  of  conviction  of  an  infidelity  to  logic  which 
ought  to  oust  you  from  your  position  as  a  teacher  of  youth. 

If  taxation,  then  (leaving  out  the  enormous  mischief  that  it 
does  as  an  instrument  of  tyranny),  is  only  one  of  the  minor 
methods  of  keeping  capital  from  labor,  what  evil  is  there  in 
the  currency  that  constitutes  the  major  method  ?  Your 
answer  to  this  question,  Professor  Sumner,  will  again  test  your 
consistency.  But  I  am  not  so  sure  what  it  will  be  in  this  case 
as  I  was  in  the  other.  If  you  answer  it  as  most  of  your  fel- 
low-professors would,  you  will  say  that  the  great  evil  in  the 
currency  is  the  robbery  of  labor  through  a  dishonest  silver 
dollar.  But  this  is  a  greater  bugbear  than  the  protective  tariff. 
The  silver  dollar  is  just  as  honest  and  just  as  dishonest  as 
the  gold  dollar,  and  neither  of  them  is  dishonest  or  a  robber 
of  labor  except  so  far  as  it  is  a  monopoly  dollar.  Both,  how- 
ever being  monopoly  dollars,  and  all  our  other  dollars  being 
monopoly  dollars,  labor  is  being  robbed  by  them  all  to  an 
extent  perfectly  appalling.  And  right  here  is  to  be  found  the 
real  reason  why  labor  cannot  get  capital.  It  is  because  its 
wages  are  kept  low  and  its  credit  rendered  next  to  valueless  by  a 
financial  system  that  makes  the  issue  of  currency  a  monopoly 


374 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


and  a  privilege,  the  result  of  which  is  the  maintenance  of  in- 
terest, rent,  and  profits  at  rates  ruinous  to  labor  and  destruc- 
tive to  business.  And  the  only  way  that  labor  can  ever  get 
capital  is  by  striking  down  this  monopoly  and  making  the  issue 
of  money  as  free  as  the  manufacture  of  shoes.  To  demone- 
tize silver  or  gold  will  not  help  labor  ;  what  labor  needs  is 

THE   MONETIZATION    OF  ALL    MARKETABLE    WEALTH.       Or,  at 

least,  the  opportunity  of  such  monetization.  This  can  only  be 
secured  by  absolutely  free  competition  in  banking.  Again  I 
ask  you,  Professor  Sumner,  does  your,  anxiety  lest  the  individ- 
ual be  interfered  with  cover  the  field  of  finance  ?  Are  you 
willing  that  the  individual  shall  be  "  let  alone  "  in  the  exercise 
of  his  right  to  make  his  own  money  and  offer  it  in  open 
market  to  be  taken  by  those  who  choose  ?  To  this  test  I  send 
you  a  second  summons  under  the  same  penalty  that  I  have 
already  hung  over  your  head  in  case  you  fail  to  respond  to  the 
first.    The  columns  of  Liberty  are  open  for  your  answer. 

Before  you  make  it,  let  me  urge  you  to  consistency.  The 
battle  between  free  trade  and  protection  is  simply  one  phase 
of  the  battle  between  Anarchism  and  State  Socialism.  To 
be  a  consistent  free  trader  is  to  be  an  Anarchist  ;  to  be  a  con- 
sistent protectionist  is  to  be  a  State  Socialist.  You  are  assail- 
ing that  form  of  State  Socialism  known  as  protection  with  a 
vigor  equalled  by  no  other  man,  but  you  are  rendering  your 
blows  of  little  effect  by  maintaining,  or  encouraging  the  belief 
that  you  maintain,  those  forms  of  State  Socialism  known  as 
compulsory  taxation  and  the  banking  monopoly.  You  assail 
Marx  and  Most  mercilessly,  but  fail  to  protest  against  the  most 
dangerous  manifestations  of  their  philosophy.  Why  pursue 
this  confusing  course  ?  In  reason's  name,  be  one  thing  or  the 
other  !  Cease  your  indiscriminate  railing  at  Socialism,  for  to 
be  consistent  you  must  be  Socialist  yourself ,  either  of  the  An- 
archistic or  the  governmental  sort :  either  be  a  State  Socialist 
and  denounce  liberty  everywhere  and  always,  or  be  an  Anarch- 
ist and  denounce  authority  everywhere  and  always  ;  else  you 
must  consent  to  be  taken  for  what  you  will  appear  to  be, — an 
impotent  hybrid. 


SOCIALISM. 


375 


AFTER  "  FREIHEIT,"  "  DER  SOZIALIST." 

{Liberty,  April  28,  1888.] 

The  first  criticism  upon  Libertas  *  came  from  the  Commun- 
ists by  the  pen  of  Herr  Most.  That  I  have  answered,  and 
Herr  Most  promises  a  rejoinder  in  Freiheit.  Meanwhile  there 
comes  an  attack  from  another  quarter, — from  the  camp  of  the 
State  Socialists.  In  their  official  organ,  Der  Sozialist,  one  of 
its  regular  writers,  J.  G.,  devotes  two  columns  to  comments 
upon  my  paper,  "  State  Socialism  and  Anarchism."  Under 
the  heading  "  Consistent  Anarchists  "  he  first  institutes  a  con- 
trast between  the  Anarchists  and  the  Communists  who  call 
themselves  Anarchists,  which  is  complimentary  to  the  former's 
consistency,  logic,  and  frankness,  and  then  proceeds  to  demol- 
ish the  logical  Anarchists  by  charges  of  absurdity,  nonsense, 
and  ignorance,  ringing  about  all  the  changes  on  these  substan- 
tives and  their  kindred  adjectives  that  the  rich  German  vocabu- 
lary will  allow.  Now,  I  submit  that,  if  the  Anarchists  are  such 
ignoramuses,  they  do  not  deserve  two  columns  of  attention  in 
Der  Sozialist ;  on  the  other  hand,  if  they  merit  a  two-column 
examination,  they  merit  it  in  the  form  of  argument  instead  of 
contemptuous  assertions  coupled  with  a  reference  to  Marx's 
works  which  reminds  one  very  much  of  the  way  in  which 
Henry  George  refers  his  State  Socialistic  critics  to  "Progress 
and  Poverty."  To  tell  the  Anarchists  that  they  do  not  know 
the  meaning  of  the  terms  value,  price,  product,  and  capital, 
that  economic  conceptions  find  no  lodgment  in  their  brains, 
and  that  their  statements  of  the  position  of  the  State  Socialists 
are  misrepresentations,  is  not  to  answer  them.  An  answer  in- 
volves analysis  and  comparison.  To  answer  an  argument  is  to 
separate  it  into  its  parts,  to  show  the  inconsistency  between 
them,  and  the  inconsistency  between  some  or  all  of  them  and 
already  established  truths.  But  in  J.  G.'s  article  there  is  noth- 
ing of  this,  or  next  to  nothing. 

The  nearest  approach  to  a  tangible  criticism  that  I  can  find 
is  the  statement  that  I  attribute  to  Marx  a  conception  of  the 
State  entirely  foreign  to  the  sense  in  which  he  used  the  term  ; 
that  he  did  not  believe  in  the  old  patriarchal  and  absolute 
State,  but  looked  upon  State  and  society  as  one.    Yes,  he  re- 


*  A  German  edition  of  Liberty  that  was  published  for  a  time  under 
the  Latin  title,  Libertas. 


376 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


garded  them  as  one  in  the  sense  that  the  lamb  and  the  lion  are 
one  after  the  lion  has  eaten  the  lamb.  Marx's  unity  of  State 
and  society  resembles  the  unity  of  husband  and  wife  in  the  eyes 
of  the  law.  Husband  and  wife  are  one,  and  that  one  is  the 
husband  ;  so,  in  Marx's  view,  State  and  society  are  one,  but 
that  one  is  the  State.  If  Marx  had  made  the  State  and  society 
one  and  that  one  society,  the  Anarchists  would  have  little  or  no 
quarrel  with  him.  For  to  the  Anarchists  society  simply  means 
the  sum  total  of  those  relations  between  individuals  which 
grow  up  through  natural  processes  unimpeded  by  external, 
constituted,  authoritative  power.  That  this  is  not  what  Marx 
meant  by  the  State  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  his  plan  in- 
volved the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  Socialism — that 
is,  the  seizure  of  capital  and  its  public  administration — by  au- 
thoritative power,  no  less  authoritative  because  democratic 
instead  of  patriarchal.  It  is  this  dependence  of  Marx's  system 
upon  authority  that  I  insist  upon  in  my  paper,  and  if  I  mis- 
represent him  in  this  I  do  so  in  common  with  all  the  State  So- 
cialistic journals  and  all  the  State  Socialistic  platforms.  But 
it  is  no  misrepresentation  ;  otherwise,  what  is  the  significance 
of  the  sneers  at  individual  sovereignty  which  J.  G.,  a  follower 
of  Marx,  indulges  in  near  the  end  of  his  article?  Has  indi- 
vidual sovereignty  any  alternative  but  authority  ?  If  it  has, 
what  is  it  ?  If  it  has  not,  and  if  Marx  and  his  followers  are 
opposed  to  it,  then  they  are  necessarily  champions  of  authority. 

But  we  will  glance  at  one  more  of  J.  G.'s  "answers."  This 
individual  sovereignty  that  you  claim,  he  says,  is  what  we 
already  have,  and  is  the  cause  of  all  our  woe.  Again  asser- 
tion, without  analysis  or  comparison,  and  put  forward  in  total 
neglect  of  my  argument.  I  started  out  with  the  proposition 
that  what  we  already  have  is  a  mixture  of  individual  sovereignty 
and  authority,  the  former  prevailing  in  some  directions,  the 
latter  in  others  ;  and  I  argued  that  the  cause  of  all  our  woe  was 
not  the  individual  sovereignty,  but  the  authority.  This  I 
showed  by  specifying  the  most  important  barriers  which  au- 
thority had  erected  to  prevent  the  free  play  of  natural  economic 
processes,  and  describing  how  these  processes  would  abolish 
all  forms  of  usury — that  is,  substantially  all  our  woe — if  these 
barriers  should  be  removed.  Is  this  argument  met  by  argu- 
ment ?  Not  a  bit  of  it.  Humph  !  says  J.  G.,  that  is  nothing 
but  "  Proudhonism  chewed  over,"  and  Marx  disposed  of  that 
long  ago.  To  which  I  might  reply  that  the  contents  of  Der 
Sozialist  are  nothing  but  "  Marxism  chewed  over,"  and  Proud- 
hon  disposed  of  that  long  ago.  When  I  can  see  that  this  style 
of  reply  is  effective  in  settling  controversy,  I  will  resort  to  it. 


SOCIALISM. 


377 


Till  then  I  prefer  to  see  it  monopolized  by  the  State  Social- 
ists. This  form  of  monopoly  Anarchists  would  sooner  permit 
than  destroy. 


STATE  SOCIALISM  AND  LIBERTY. 

[Liberty,  February  21,  1891.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty : 

An  Anarchist  paper  defines  an  Individualist  to  be  "one  who  believes 
in  the  principle  of  recognizing  the  right  of  every  non-aggressive  individual 
to  the  full  control  of  his  person  and  property."  Is  this  the  meaning  of 
the  word  as  you  understand  it?  If  so,  and  if  it  is  correct,  Individualism 
and  Socialism  are  reconcilable,  since  the  aim  of  the  latter  is  the  obtain- 
ment  of  the  condition  sought  by  the  former.  Though  the  methods  of 
Socialists  may  conflict  in  effect  with  the  principle  of  Individualism,  they 
accord  with  it  fundamentally,  do  they  not  ?  From  all  the  works  I  can  find 
on  modern  Socialism,  or  Nationalism,  I  understand  its  object  to  be  the 
protection  of  each  individual  in  the  privilege  of  enjoying  his  rights, — i.e., 
to  form  a  condition  whereby  equal  freedom  may  be  enjoyed,  by  forbidding 
the  invasion,  and  all  acts  of  men,  which  affect  to  a  disadvantage,  directly 
or  indirectly,  the  person  or  property  of  any  non-aggressive  individual. 
The  means  proposed  by  Socialists  may  fail  in  effect  to  form  such  a  con- 
dition, but  still  a  Socialist  may  be  an  Individualist.  I  understand  how 
the  nationalization  of  industries  may  stop  the  invasion  of  the  greedy  mo- 
nopolists of  interest,  unfair  profits,  and  rents,  but  I  have  never  learned 
from  Liberty  or  any  other  champion  of  Anarchism  how  the  same  could 
invade  the  liberty  of  any  individual  but  the  aggressive  and  the  tyrannical. 
The  protection  of  the  weak  and  innocent  against  the  strong  and  avari- 
cious necessarily  involves  compulsion,  whether  by  the  will  of  the  people 
as  typified  by  a  system  of  democratic  government  or  by  their  will  as 
idealized  by  Anarchists.  A  defence  of  a  crime  involves  compulsion  of 
some  sort,  .whether  the  force  of  a  superstitious  law  or  the  power  of  pop- 
ular Anarchy.  How,  then,  does  Anarchism  conflict  with  Socialism  or 
Individualism  as  above  defined?  Yours, 

Willis  Hudspeth. 

Atlantic,  Iowa,  February  11,  1891. 

The  definition  offered  of  Individualism  might  not  be  ac- 
cepted by  all  Individualists,  but  it  will  do  very  well  as  a  defini- 
tion of  Anarchism.  When  my  correspondent  speaks  of  Social- 
ism I  understand  him  to  mean  State  Socialism  and  Nationalism, 
and  not  that  Anarchistic  Socialism  which  Liberty  represents. 
I  shall  answer  him  on  this  supposition.  He  wishes  to  know, 
then,  how  State  Socialism  and  Nationalism  would  restrict  the 
non-aggressive  individual  in  the  full  control  of  his  person  and 
property.  In  a  thousand  and  one  ways.  I  will  tell  him  one, 
and  leave  him  to  find  out  the  thousand.    The  principal  plank 


378 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


in  the  platform  of  State  Socialism  and  Nationalism  is  the  con- 
fiscation of  all  capital  by  the  State.  What  becomes,  in  that 
case,  of  the  property  of  any  individual,  whether  he  be  aggres- 
sive or  non-aggressive  ?  What  becomes  also  of  private  indus- 
try ?  Evidently  it  is  totally  destroyed.  What  becomes  then 
of  the  personal  liberty  of  those  non-aggressive  individuals  who 
are  thus  prevented  from  carrying  on  business  for  themselves  or 
from  assuming  relations  between  themselves  as  employer  and 
employee  if  they  prefer,  and  who  are  obliged  to  become  em- 
ployees of  the  State  against  their  will  ?  State  Socialism  and 
Nationalism  mean  the  utter  destruction  of  human  liberty  and 
private  property. 


ON  PICKET  DUTY. 

In  a  series  of  articles  in  the  London  Commonweal,  Dr.  Ed- 
ward Aveling,  newly-fledged  disciple  of  Karl  Marx,  discusses 
economic  questions.  He  concludes  each  article  with  what  he 
calls  "  a  concise  definition  of  each  of  the  terms  mentioned." 
These  two  definitions  stand  side  by  side.  "  Natural  object — 
that  on  which  human  labor  has  not  been  expended  ;  Product 
— a  natural  object  on  which  human  labor  has  been  expended." 
A  product,  then,  is  something  on  which  human  labor  has  not 
been  expended  on  which  human  labor  has  been  expended. 
Curious  animal,  a  product !  No  wonder  the  laborer  is  unable 
to  hold  on  to  it.  More  slippery  than  a  greased  pig,  I  should 
imagine.  But  this  is  a  "scientific"  definition,  and  I  suppose 
it  must  be  true.  For  its  author,  Dr.  Aveling,  is  a  scientist, 
and  the  subject  of  his  articles  is  "  Scientific  Socialism,"  which 
he  champions  against  us  loose-thinking  Anarchists. — Liberty, 
July  18,  1885. 

At  his  Faneuil  Hall  meeting  Dr.  Aveling  said  :  "  With  the 
abolition  of  private  property  in  land,  with  the  abolition  of 
private  property  in  raw  material,  with  the  abolition  of  private 
property  in  machinery,  will  come  the  abolition  of  private  prop- 
erty in  human  lives."  Never  was  truer  word  spoken.  For 
with  State  property  in  land,  with  State  property  in  raw  ma- 
terial, with  State  property  in  machinery,  would  come  State 
property  in  human  lives.  Such  is  the  object  of  Dr.  Aveling's 
State  Socialism, — the  obliteration  of  the  individual  life.  Prop- 
perty  in  human  lives  ought  to  be  as  "  private  "  as  possible; 


SOCIALISM. 


379 


each  individual  (forgive  the  tautology)  should  own  his  own. 
But  under  State  Socialism  the  ownership  of  each  individual's 
life  would  be  virtually  vested  in  the  body  politic.  Those 
who  hold  the  property  in  the  means  of  living  will  inevitably 
hold  the  property  in  life  itself. — Liberty,  October  30,  1886. 

In  a  late  number  of  Liberty  H.  M.  Hyndman  was  rebuked 
for  confounding  the  teachings  of  Liberty  with  those  of  Most. 
Now  his  paper,  the  London  Justice,  in  commenting  upon  a 
recent  article  in  Liberty,  says  :  "  Evidently  the  Liberty  and 
Property  Defence  League,  the  Manchester  school  of  econo- 
mists, and  the  Anarchists  are  one  and  the  same."  This  indi- 
cates advancing  intelligence.  Most  is  much  nearer  to  Hynd- 
man than  to  Liberty,  and  Anarchism  is  much  nearer  to  the 
Manchester  men  than  to  Most.  In  principle,  that  is.  Liber 
ty's  aim — universal  happiness — is  that  of  all  Socialists,  in  con- 
trast with  that  of  the  Manchester  men — luxury  fed  by  misery. 
But  its  principle — individual  sovereignty — is  that  of  the  Man- 
chester men,  in  contrast  with  that  of  the  Socialists — individual 
subordination.  But  individual  sovereignty,  when  logically  car- 
ried out,  leads,  not  to  luxury  fed  by  misery,  but  to  comfort  for 
all  industrious  persons  and  death  for  all  idle  ones. — Liberty, 
November  20,  1886. 

Every  day  I  meet  some  new  man  who  tells  me  that  Anarchy 
is  the  ultimate,  but  that  it  is  to  be  reached  through  State  So- 
cialism. The  State  Socialists  are  shrewd  enough  to  encourage 
this  folly,  though  they  laugh  in  their  sleeve  as  they  do  so.  It 
is  astonishing,  therefore,  that  the  usually  cunning  Powderly 
should  be  so  honest  and  imprudent  as  to  permit  the  utterance 
of  the  real  truth  about  this  matter  in  the  editorial  columns  of 
the  Journal  of  the  Knights  of  Labor.  "  Oscar  Wilde  declares 
that  Socialism  will  simply  lead  to  individualism.  That  is  like 
saying  that  the  way  from  St.  Louis  to  New  York  is  through 
San  Francisco,  or  that  the  sure  way  to  whitewash  a  wall  is  to 
paint  it  black.  The  man  who  says  that  Socialism  will  fail  and 
then  the  people  will  try  individualism — i.e.,  Anarchy — may  be 
mistaken;  the  man  who  thinks  they  are  one  and  the  same 
thing  is  simply  a  fool." — Liberty,  May  16,  1891. 


COMMUNISM. 


GENERAL  WALKER  AND  THE  ANARCHISTS.* 


[Liberty,  November  19,  1887.] 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — Some  four  years  ago  I  had  oc- 
casion to  write  a  criticism  of  a  work  then  new, — Professor 
Ely's  "  French  and  German  Socialism  in  Modern  Times," — 
and  I  began  it  with  these  paragraphs  : 

It  is  becoming  the  fashion  in  these  days  for  the  parsons  who  are  hired, 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  to  whitewash  the 
sins  of  the  plutocrats,  and  for  the  professors  who  are  hired,  either  di- 
rectly or  indirectly,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  to  educate  the  sons  of 
the  plutocrats  to  continue  in  the  transgressions  of  their  fathers, — it  is 
becoming  the  fashion  for  these  to  preach  sermons,  deliver  lectures,  or 
write  books  on  Socialism,  Communism,  Anarchism,  and  the  various  other 
phases  of  the  modern  labor  movement.  So  general,  indeed,  has  become 
the 'practice  that  any  one  of  them  who  has  not  done  something  in  this  line 
begins  to  feel  a  vague  sense  of  delinquency  in  the  discharge  of  his  obliga- 
tions to  his  employer,  and  consequently  scarce  a  week  passes  that  does  not 
inflict  upon  a  suffering  public  from  these  gentlemen  some  fresh  clerical  or 
professorial  analysis,  classification,  interpretation,  and  explanation  of  the 
ominous  overhanging  social  clouds  which  conceal  the  thunderbolt  that, 
unless  the  light  of  Liberty  and  Equity  dissipates  them  in  time,  is  to  destroy 
their  masters'  houses. 

The  attitudes  assumed  are  as  various  as  the  authors  are  numerous. 
Some  are  as  lowering  as  the  clouds  themselves  ;  others  as  beaming  as  the 
noonday  sun.  One  would  annihilate  with  the  violence  of  his  fulminations  ; 
another  would  melt  with  the  warmth  of  his  flattery  and  the  persuasiveness 
of  conciliation.  These  foolishly  betray  their  spirit  of  hatred  by  threats 
and  denunciation  ;  those  shrewdly  conceal  it  behind  fine  words  and  hon 
eyed  phrases.  The  latest  manifestation  coming  to  our  notice  is  of  the 
professedly  disinterested  order.  Richard  T.  Ely,  associate  professor  of 
political  economy  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  at  Baltimore  and  lec- 
turer on  political  economy  in  Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y.,  comes 
to  the  front  with  a  small  volume  on  "  French  and  German  Socialism  in 
Modern  Times,"  the  chapters  [of  which,  now  somewhat  rewritten,  were 
originally  so  many  lectures  to  the  students  under  his  charge,  and  substan- 
tially (not  literally)  announces  himself  as  follows  :  "  Attention  !  Behold  ! 
I  am  come  to  do  a  service  to  the  friends  of  law  and  order  by  expounding 
the  plans  and  purposes  of  the  honest  but  mistaken  enemies  of  law  and 
order.    But,  whereas  nearly  all  my  predecessors  in  this  field  have  been 


*An  address  delivered  before  the  Boston  Anarchists'  Club  on  Novem- 
ber 6,  1887. 


383 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


unfair  and  partial,  I  intend  to  be  fair  and  impartial."  And  we  are  bound 
to  say  that  this  pretence  has  been  maintained  so  successfully  throughout 
the  book  that  it  can  hardly  fail  to  mislead  every  reader  who  has  not  in  ad- 
vance the  good  fortune  to  know  more  than  the  author  about  his  subject. 

I  quote  these  paragraphs  at  the  beginning  of  this  paper,  be- 
cause I  was  forcibly  reminded  of  them  on  reading  the  other 
day  in  the  Boston  Post  a  long  and  very  interesting  report  of 
an  address  on  "  Anarchism  and  Socialism,"  delivered  the  pre- 
vious evening  before  the  Trinity  Club  of  this  city  by  General 
Francis  A.  Walker,  president  of  the  Massachusetts  Institute 
of  Technology.  The  tone  of  the  address,  like  that  of  Profes- 
sor Ely's  book,  was  seemingly  so  fair  ;  there  was  such  an  ap- 
parent effort  to  carefully  discriminate  between  the  different 
schools  of  Socialism,  and  to  bestow  words  of  praise  wherever, 
in  the  speaker's  judgment,  such  were  deserved  ;  and  a  dispo- 
sition was  so  frankly  exhibited  to  find  important  elements  of 
truth  in  Socialistic  teachings, — that  I  myself,  usually  so  wary 
and  so  doubtful  of  the  possibility  of  any  good  issuing  from  the 
Nazareth  of  orthodox  political  economy,  was  misled,  not  in- 
deed into  acquiescence  in  the  speaker's  errors,  which  were 
many  and  egregious,  but  into  a  belief  in  his  honesty  of  pur- 
pose and  his  genuine  desire  to  understand  his  opponents  and 
represent  them  accurately.  This  man,  said  I  to  myself,  is 
ready  to  be  set  right. 

So  I  wrote  him  a  letter,  asking  the  privilege  of  an  hour's  in- 
terview. The  request  was  phrased  as  politely  as  my  knowl- 
edge of  English  and  of  the  requirements  of  courtesy  would 
permit.  I  congratulated  General  Walker  on  his  evident  dis- 
position to  be  fair,  but  hinted  as  delicately  as  I  could  that 
certain  things  had  escaped  him  and  certain  others  had  misled 
him.  I  assured  him  that  I  had  no  expectation  of  converting 
him  to  my  views,  but  was  confident  that  I  could  give  him  a~ 
better  understanding  of  Anarchism.  I  told  him  that,  if  ne- 
cessary, I  would  give  him  references  among  the  foremost 
Socialists  of  America  as  to  my  competency  to  accurately  re- 
present Anarchism,  and  added  that  for  three  years  I  was  a 
regular  student  in  the  educational  institution  of  which  he  is 
now  at  the  head. 

A  day  or  two  later  I  received  this  reply  : 

Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology, 

Boston,  October  27,  1887. 
Dear  Sir  :— Your  letter  of  the  25th  inst.  is  received. 

I  regret  that  I  have  not  time  to  go  into  the  subject  of  Anarchism,  as 
you  propose.  The  report  of  my  speech  before  the  Trinity  Club,  on  the 
24th,  was  altogether  unauthorized.    I  was  assured  that  I  was  addressing 


COMMUNISM. 


385 


a  private  club,  informally  ;  and,  at  the  last,  only  assented  to  the  title  of 
the  lecture  being  mentioned.  ' 

I  dare  say  the  report  was  also  incorrect.    Such  reports  generally  are. 
I  have  not  read  it. 

Respectfully  yours, 

Francis  A.  Walker. 

This  letter  completely  dissolved  my  illusion.  It  showed  me 
at  once  that  General  Walker's  fairness,  like  that  of  his  brother 
economist,  Professor  Ely,  lay  entirely  on  the  surface— the  only 
difference  between  them,  perhaps,  being  that,  while  Professor 
Ely  falsified  deliberately  and  with  knowledge  of  the  truth,  Gen- 
eral Walker  spoke  in  ignorance,  though  posing  as  a  teacher, 
and  became  a  hypocrite  only  after  the  fact,  by  refusing  to 
know  the  truth  or  have  it  pointed  out  to  him.  Here  is  a 
man,  famous  as  an  economist,  with  a  reputation  to  sustain, 
who  has  time  to  prepare  and  deliver,  or  else  to  deliver  without 
preparation,  before  a  private  club,  on  the  uppermost  and  most 
important  question  of  the  day,  an  address  so  long  that  even 
an  inadequate  report  of  it  filled  a  column  and  a  half  in  the 
Boston  Post,  but  has  not  one  hour  in  which  to  listen  to  proof 
offered  in  substantiation  of  a  charge  of  gross  error  preferred 
against  him  by  one  who  for  fifteen  years  has  made  this  ques- 
tion a  subject  of  special  study. 

It  will  not  do  for  him  to  plead  in  excuse  that  the  Posts  re- 
port, which  he  has  not  read,  may  be  incorrect,  and  that  there- 
fore the  charge  of  error  may  be  based  on  statements  unwar- 
rantably attributed  to  him.  '  It  so  happens  that  it  falls  to  my 
lot  as  a  daily  journalist  to  revise  and  prepare  for  publication 
reports  of  all  descriptions  to  the  number  of  several  hundred  a 
week,  and  in  consequence  I  know  an  intelligent  report  when  I 
see  one  as  infallibly  as  a  painter  knows  a  good  picture  when 
he  sees  one.  In  the  report  in  question  there  maybe  minor  in- 
accuracies ;  as  to  that  I  cannot  say  :  but  as  a  whole  it  is  a 
report  of  uncommon  excellence  and  intelligence.  Given  a  re- 
port containing  a  mass  of  errors,  if  these  errors  are  the  re- 
porter's, they  will  be  a  jumble  ;  if,  on  the-  other  hand,  they 
bear  a  definite  relation  to  each  other  and  proceed  from  a  com- 
mon and  fundamental  error,  it  is  sure  that  they  are  not  the  re- 
porter's errors,  but  the  lecturer's.  In  this  case  the  error  fallen 
into  at  the  start  is  so  consistently  held  to  and  so  frequently 
repeated  that  it  would  be  contrary  to  the  law  of  chances  to 
hold  the  reporter  responsible  for  it  ;  General  Walker  must 
answer  for  it  himself.  And  as  he  will  not  listen  to  a  private 
demonstration  offered  in  a  friendly  spirit,  I  am  compelled  to 


3S6 


INSTEAD  OF   A  HOOK. 


submit  him  to  a  public  demonstration  #offered  in  a  somewhat 
antagonistic  spirit. 

What,  then,  is  the  fundamental  error  into  which  General 
Walker  falls  ?  It  is  this, — that,  in  trying,  as  he  claims,  to  set 
Anarchism  before  his  hearers  as  it  is  seen  by  its  most  intel- 
ligent advocates,  he  discriminates  between  men  of  whom  he 
instances  Prince  Kropotkine  as  typical,  as  intelligent  ex- 
ponents of  scientific  Anarchy  on  the  one  hand,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  men  like  the  seven  under  sentence  at  Chicago  as 
unintelligent,  ignorant,  ruffianly  scoundrels,  who  call  them- 
selves Anarchists,  but  are  not  Anarchists. 

Now,  I  perfectly  agree  with  General  Walker  that  the  Chi- 
cago men  call  themselves  Anarchists,  but  are  not  Anarchists. 
And  inasmuch  as  my  subject  compels  me  to  say  something  in 
criticism  of  these  men's  opinions  and  inasmuch  also  as  five 
days  hence  they  are  to  die  upon  the  gallows,  victims  of  a 
tyranny  as  cruel,  as  heartless,  as  horrible,  as  blind  as  any  that 
ever  bloodied  history's  pages,  you  will  excuse  me,  I  am  sure, 
if  I  interrupt  my  argument,  almost  before  beginning  it,  long 
enough  to  qualify  my  criticism  in  advance  by  a  word  of  tribute 
and  a  declaration  of  fellowship.  Instead  of  ruffianly  scoun- 
drels, these  men  are  noble-hearted  heroes  deeply  in  love  with  or- 
der, peace,  and  harmony, — loving  these  so  deeply,  in  fact,  that 
they  have  not  remained  contented  with  any  platonic  affection 
worshipping  them  as  ideals  ever  distant,  but  have  given  their 
lives  to  a  determined  effort  to  win  and  enjoy  them  to  the  full- 
est. I  differ  with  them  vitally  in  opinion  ;  I  disapprove  ut- 
terly their  methods  ;  I  dispute  emphatically  their  Anarchism  : 
but  as  brothers,  as  dear  comrades,  animated  by  the  same  love, 
and  working,  in  the  broad  sense,  in  a  common  cause  than 
which  there  never  was  a  grander,  I  give  them  both  my  hands 
and  my  heart  in  them.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  shirk  in  the 
slightest  the  solidarity  that  unites  us.  Were  I  to  do  so,  for 
trivial  ends  or  from  ignoble  fears,  I  should  despise  myself  as  a 
coward.  For  these  brave  men  I  have  no  apologies  to  make  ; 
I  am  proud  of  their  courage,  1  glory  in  their  devotion.  If 
they  shall  be  murdered  on  Friday  next,  I  fear  that  the  vile  deed 
will  prove  fraught  with  consequences  from  which,  if  its  per- 
petrators could  foresee  them,  even  they,  brutes  as  they  are, 
would  recoil  in  horror  and  dismay. 

I  say,  however,  with  General  Walker,  that  these  men  are  not 
Anarchists,  though  they  call  themselves  so.  But  if  I  prove 
that  Prince  Kropotkine  agrees  with  them  exactly,  both  as  to 
the  form  of  social  organization  to  be  striven  for  and  as  to  the 
methods  by  which  to  strive  for  and  sustain  it,  I  show  thereby 


COMMUNISM. 


3*7 


that,  as  they  are  not  Anarchists,  he  is  not  one,  that  General 
Walker's  discrimination  is  therefore  a  false  one,  and  that,  in 
making  it,  he  showed  utter  ignorance  of  the  nature  of  Anar- 
chism proper.    Now,  precisely  that  I  propose  to  prove. 

To  this  end  the  first  question  to  be  asked  is  :  What  is  the 
Socialistic  creed  of  the  Chicago  men  ?  It  is  a  very  simple  one, 
consisting  of  two  articles  :  i,  that  all  natural  wealth  and  prod- 
ucts of  labor  should  be  held  in  common,  produced  by  each 
according  to  his  powers  and  distributed  to  each  according  to 
his  needs,  through  the  administrative  mechanism  and  under 
the  administrative  control  of  workingmen's  societies  organized 
by  trades  ;  2,  that  every  individual  should  have  perfect  lib- 
erty in  all  things  except  the  liberty  to  produce  for  himself  and 
to  exchange  with  his  neighbors  outside  the  channels  of  the 
prescribed  mechanism.  Not  stopping  to  consider  here  how 
much  any  liberties  would  be  worth  without  the  liberty  to  pro- 
duce and  exchange,  I  proceed  to  the  second  question  :  How 
do  the  Chicago  men  propose  that  their  creed  shall  be  realized  ? 
The  answer  to  this  is  simpler  still,  consisting  of  but  one  arti- 
cle :  that  the  working  people  should  arm  themselves,  rise  in 
revolution,  forcibly  expropriate  every  proprietor,  and  then 
form  the  necessary  workingmen's  societies,  whose  ^rst  duty 
should  be  to  feed,  clothe,  and  shelter  the  masses  out  of  the 
common  stock,  whose  second  duty  should  be  to  organize  pro- 
duction for  the  renewal  of  the  stock,  and  whose  third  duty 
should  be  to  suppress  by  whatever  heroic  measures  all  rebel- 
lious individuals  who  should  at  any  time  practically  assert 
their  right  to  produce  and  exchange  for  themselves.  The 
literature  circulated  by  this  school  is  now  so  well  known  that 
I  do  not  need  to  make  quotations  from  it  to  show  that  its 
teachings  are  as  I  have  stated.  I  assume  that  this  will  not  be 
disputed.  It  remains  to  consider  whether  Kropotkine's  teach- 
ings materially  differ  from  them.  I  claim  that  they  do  not, 
and,  as  Kropotkine's  writings  are  less  familiar  to  Americans,  it 
is  necessary  to  prove  this  claim  by  quotations.  His  chief  work 
is  written  in  French,  a  volume  of  some  350  pages  entitled 
"  Paroles  d'un  Revoke  "  ("  Words  of  a  Rebel  ").  The  title  of 
the  closing  chapter  is  "  Expropriation."  From  that  chapter  I 
now  translate  and  quote  as  follows  : 

We  have  to  put  an  end  to  the  iniquities,  the  vices,  the  crimes  which 
result  from  the  idle  existence  of  some  and  the  economic,  intellectual,  and 
moral  servitude  of  others.  The  problem  is  an  immense  one.  But,  since 
past  centuries  have  left  this  problem  to  our  generation;  since  we  find  our- 
selves under  the  historical  necessity  of  working  for  its  complete  solution, — 
we  must  accept  the  task.    Moreover,  we  are  no  longer  obliged  to  grope  in 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


the  dark  for  the  solution.  It  has  been  imposed  upon  us  by  history,  simul- 
taneously with  the  problem;  it  has  been  and  is  being  stated  boldly  in  all 
European  countries,  and  it  sums  up  the  economic  and  intellectual  develop- 
ment of  our  century.    It  is  Expropriation;  it  is  Anarchy. 

If  social  wealth  remains  in  the  hands  of  the  few  who  possess  it  to-day;  if 
the  workshop,  the  dockyard,  and  the  factory  remain  the  property  of  the 
employer;  if  the  railways,  the  means  of  transportation,  continue  in  the 
hands  of  the  companies  and  the  individuals  who  have  monopolized  them ; 
if  the  houses  of  the  cities  as  well  as  the  country-seats  of  the  lords  remain 
in  possession  of  their  actual  proprietors,  instead  of  being  placed,  from  the 
beginning  of  the  revolution,  at  the  gratuitous  disposition  of  all  laborers;  if 
all  accumulated  treasure,  whether  in  the  banks  or  in  the  houses  of  the 
wealthy,  does  not  immediately  go  back  to  the  collectivity — since  all  have 
contributed  to  produce  it;  if  the  insurgent  people  do  not  take  possession 
of  all  the  goods  and  provisions  amassed  in  the  great  cities  and  do  not  or- 
ganize to  put  them  within  the  reach  of  all  who  need  them  ;  if  the  land, 
finally,  remains  the  property  of  the  bankers  and  usurers, — to  whom  it 
belongs  to-day,  in  fact,  if  not  in  law, — and  if  the  great  tracts  of  real  estate 
are  not  taken  away  from  the  great  proprietors,  to  be  put  within  the  reach 
of  all  who  wish  to  labor  on  the  soil;  if,  further,  there  is  established  a 
governing  class  to  dictate  to  a  governed  class, — the  insurrection  will  not  be 
a  revolution,  and  everything  will  have  to  be  begun  over  again.  .  .  . 

Expropriation, — that,  then,  is  the  watchword  which  is  imposed  upon  the 
next  revolution,  under  penalty  of  failing  in  its  historic  mission.  The 
complete  expropriation  of  all  who  have,  the  means  of  exploiting  human 
beings.  The  return  to  common  ownership  by  the  nation  of  all  that  can 
serve  in  the  hands  of  any  one  for  the  exploitation  of  others. 

This  extract  covers  all  the  doctrines  of  the  Chicago  men, 
does  it  not  ?  That  it  covers  common  property  and  distribu- 
tion according  to  needs  no  one  can  question.  That  it  covers 
the  denial  of  the  right  of  individual  production  and  exchange 
is  equally  clear.  Kropotkine  says,  it  is  true,  that  he  would 
allow  the  individual  access  to  the  land  ;  but  as  he  proposes  to 
strip  him  of  capital  entirely,  and  as  he  declares  a  few  pages 
further  on  that  without  capital  agriculture  is  impossible,  it  fol- 
lows that  such  access  is  an  empty  privilege  not  at  all  equiva- 
lent to  the  liberty  of  individual  production.  But  one  point 
remains, — that  of  the  method  of  expropriation  by  force  ;  and 
if  any  one  still  feels  any  doubt  of  Kropotkine's  belief  in  that, 
let  me  remove  it  by  one  more  quotation  : 

We  must  see  clearly  in  private  property  what  it  really  is,  a  conscious  or 
unconscious  robbery  of  the  substance  of  all,  and  seize  it  joyfully  for  the 
common  benefit  when  the  hour  of  revendication  shall  strike.  In  all  former 
revolutions,  when  it  was  a  question  of  replacing  a  king  of  the  elder  branch 
by  a  king  of  the  younger  branch  or  of  substituting  lawyers  for  lawyers  in 
the  "best  of  republics,"  proprietors  succeeded  proprietors  and  the  social 
regime  had  not  to  change.  Accordingly  the  placards,  "Death  to  rob- 
bers !"  which  were  placed  at  the  entrance  of  every  palace  were  in  perfect 
harmony  with  the  current  morality,  and  many  a  poor  devil  caught  touch- 
ing a  coin  of  the  king,  or  perhaps  even  the  bread  of  the  baker,  was  shot 
as  an  example  of  the  justice  administered  by  the  people. 


COMMUNISM. 


3«9 


The  worthy  national  guard,  incarnating  in  himself  all  the  infamous  so- 
lemnity of  the  laws  which  the  monopolists  had  framed  for  the  defence 
of  their  property,  pointed  with  pride  to  the  body  stretched  across  the  steps 
of  the  palace,  and  his  comrades  hailed  him  as  an  avenger  of  the  law. 
Those  placards  of  1830  and  1848  will  not  be  seen  again  upon  the  walls  of 
insurgent  cities.  No  robbery  is  possible  where  all  belongs  to  all.  "  Take 
and  do  not  waste,  for  it  is  all  yours,  and  you  will  need  it."  But  destroy 
without  delay  all  that  should  be  overthrown,  the  bastilles  and  the  prisons, 
the  forts  turned  against  the  cities  and  the  unhealthy  quarters  in  which  you 
have  so  long  breathed  an  atmosphere  charged  with  poison.  Install  your- 
selves in  the  palaces  and  mansions,  and  make  a  bonfire  of  the  piles  of 
bricks  and  rotten  wood  of  which  the  sinks  in  which  you  have  lived  were 
constructed.  The  instinct  of  destruction,  so  natural  and  so  just  because  it 
is  at  the  same  time  the  instinct  of  renovation,  will  find  ample  room  for 
satisfaction. 

Nothing  more  incendiary  than  that  was  ever  uttered  in  the 
Haymarket  or  on  the  lake  front  at  Chicago  by  the  most  rabid 
agitator  of  that  volcanic  city.  And  if  further  proof  were 
needed,  it  could  readily  be  found  in  the  columns  of  Kropot- 
kine's  paper,  Le  Revolte\  in  which  he  lately  lauded  to  the  skies 
as  a  legitmate  act  of  propagandism  the  conduct  of  a  member 
of  his  party  named  Duval,  who,  after  a  fashion  externally  in- 
distinguishable from  that  of  a  burglar,  broke  into  a  house  in 
Paris  and  plundered  it,  and  who  afterwards  vindicated  his 
course  in  court  as  deliberately  entered  upon  in  pursuance  of 
his  principles. 

In  view  of  these  things,  I  submit  that  General  Walker  has 
no  warrant  whatever  for  referring  to  such  men  as  Kropotkine 
as  true  Anarchists  and  "  among  the  best  men  in  the  world," 
while  in  the  same  breath  he  declares  (I  use  his  words  as  re- 
ported in  the  Post)  that  "  the  mobs  at  the  Haymarket  were 
composed  of  pickpockets,  housebreakers,  and  hoodlums,"  and 
that  "  the  ruffians  who  are  called  Anarchists  who  formed  the 
mob  in  the  Haymarket  in  Chicago  were  not  Anarchists."  If 
Kropotkine  is  an  Anarchist,  then  the  Chicago  men  are  Anar- 
chists ;  if  the  Chicago  men  are  not  Anarchists,  then  Kropot- 
kine is  not  an  Anarchist.  If  the  Chicago  men  are  pickpockets 
and  housebreakers,  then  Kropotkine  is  a  pickpocket  and 
housebreaker ;  if  Kropotkine  is  not  a  pickpocket  and  house- 
breaker, then  the  Chicago  men  are  not  pickpockets  and 
housebreakers.  The  truth  is  that  neither  of  them  are  house- 
breakers in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term,  but  that  both  of 
them,  in  advocating  and  executing  the  measures  that  they  do, 
however  unjustifiable  these  may  be  from  the  standpoint  of 
justice  and  reason,  are  actuated  by  the  highest  and  most  hu- 
mane motives.  And  as  to  their  Anarchism,  neither  of  them 
are  Anarchists.    For  Anarchism  means  absolute  liberty,  noth- 


59° 


I.NM'EAD  Of  A  BOOK. 


ing  more,  nothing  less.  Both  Kropotkine  and  the  Chicago 
men  deny  liberty  in  production  and  exchange,  the  most  im- 
portant of  all  liberties, — without  which,  in  fact,  all  other 
liberties  are  of  no  value  or  next  to  none.  Both  should  be 
called,  instead  of  Anarchists,  Revolutionary  Communists. 

In  making  this  discrimination  which  does  not  discriminate, 
General  Walker  showed  that  he  does  not  know  what  Anar- 
chism is.  Had  he  known,  he  would  have  drawn  his  line  of 
discrimination  in  a  very  different  direction, — between  real 
Anarchists  like  P.  J.  Proudhon,  Josiah  Warren,  Lysander 
Spooner,  and  their  followers,  who  believe  in  the  liberty  of 
production  and  exchange,  and  miscalled  Anarchists  like  Kro- 
potkine and  the  Chicago  men,  who  deny  that  liberty.  But  of 
the  true  Anarchism  he  seems  never  to  have  heard.  For  he 
says  : 

All  Anarchistic,  philosophy  presumes  the  Communistic  reorganization 
of  society.  No  Anarchist  claims  that  the  principles  of  Anarchy  can  be 
applied  to  the  present  or  capitalistic  state  of  society.  Prince  Kropotkine, 
in  common  with  other  Anarchistic  writers,  claims  that  the  next  move  of 
society  will  be  free  Communism.  We  must  understand  that  Anarchism 
means  Communism. 

So  far  is  this  from  true,  that  Communism  was  rejected  and 
despised  by  the  original  Anarchist,  Proudhon,  as  it  has  been 
by  his  followers  to  this  day.  Anarchism  would  to-day  be 
utterly  separate  from  Communism  if  the  Jurassian  Federation 
in  Switzerland,  a  Communistic  branch  of  the  International,  had 
not  broken  from  the  main  body  in  1873  and  usurped  the  name 
of  Anarchism  for  its  own  propaganda,  which  propaganda, 
having  been  carried  on  with  great  energy  from  that  day  to  this, 
has  given  General  Walker  and  many  others  an  erroneous  idea 
of  Anarchism.  To  correct  this  idea  we  must  go  to  the  fount- 
ain-head. 

In  1840  Proudhon  published  his  first  important  work,  "  What 
is  Property  ?  or,  An  Inquiry  into  the  Principle  of  Right  and 
of  Government."    In  it  the  following  passage  may  be  found  : 

What  is  to  be  the  form  of  government  in  the  future  ?  I  hear  some  of 
my  younger  readers  reply  :  "  Why,  how  can  you  ask  such  a  question  ? 
You  are  a  republican." — "  A  republican  !  Yes  ;  but  that  word  specifies 
nothing.  Res  publico,  ;  that  is,  the  public  thing.  Now,  whoever  is  inter- 
ested in  public  affairs — no  matter  under  what  form  of  government — may 
call  himself  a  republican.  Even  kings  are  republicans." — "  Well,  you  are 
a  democrat?" — "No. " — "What!  you  would  have  a  monarchy?" — 
"No." — "A  constitutionalist?" — "God  forbid!" — "You  are  then  an 
aristocrat?" — "Not  at  all." — "You  want  a  mixed  government?" — 
"  Still  less." — "  What  are  you,  then  ?  " — "  I  am  an  Anarchist." 

"Oh!    I  understand  you  ;  you  speak  satirically.    This  is  a  hit  at 


COMMUNISM. 


the  government."—  By  no  means.  I  have  just  given  you  my  serious 
and  well-considered  profession  of  faith.  Although  a  firm  friend  of  order, 
I  am  (in  the  full  force  of  the  term)  an  Anarchist.     Listen  to  me." 

He  then  traces  in  a  few  pages  the  decline  of  the  principle 
of  authority,  and  arrives  at  the  conclusion  that,  "  in  a  given 
society,  the  authority  of  man  over  man  is  inversely  proportional 
to  the  stage  of  intellectual  development  which  that  society  has 
reached";  that,  "just  as  the  right  of  force  and  the  right  of 
artifice  retreat  before  the  steady  advance  of  justice,  and  must 
finally  be  extinguished  in  equality,  so  the  sovereignty  of  the 
will  yields  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  reason,  and  must  at  last 
be  lost  in  scientific  Socialism "  ;  and  that,  "  as  man  seeks 
justice  in  equality,  so  society  seeks  order  in  Anarchy." 

This  is  the  first  instance  on  record,  so  far  as  I  have  been 
able  to  discover,  of  the  use  of  the  word  Anarchy  to  denote, 
not  political  chaos,  but  the  ideal  form  of  society  to  which 
evolution  tends.  These  words  made  Proudhon  the  father  of 
the  Anarchistic  school  of  Socialism.  His  use  of  the  word  and 
its  adoption  by  his  followers  gave  it  its  true  standing  in  polit- 
ical and  scientific  terminology.  Proudhon,  then,  being  the 
Anarchist  par  excellence,  let  us  examine  his  attitude  towards 
Communism  in  order  to  test  thereby  General  Walker's  asser- 
tion that  "  all  Anarchistic  philosophy  presumes  the  Com- 
munistic reorganization  of  society "  and  that  "  Anarchism 
means  Communism." 

It  probably  will  surprise  many  who  know  nothing  of  Prou- 
dhon save  his  declaration  that  "  property  is  robbery  "  to  learn 
that  he  was  perhaps  the  most  vigorous  hater  of  Communism 
that  ever  lived  on  this  planet.  But  the  apparent  inconsist- 
ency vanishes  when  you  read  his  book  and  find  that  by  prop- 
erty he  means  simply  legally  privileged  wealth  or  the  power 
of  usury,  and  not  at  all  the  possession  by  the  laborer  of  his 
products.  Of  such  possession  he  was  a  stanch  defender. 
Bearing  this  in  mind,  listen  now  to  the  few  paragraphs  which 
I  shall  read  from  "What  is  Property  ?"  and  which  are  sepa- 
rated only  by  a  dozen  pages  from  what  I  have  already  quoted 
from  the  same  work  : 

I  ought  not  to  conceal  the  fact  that  property  and  communism  have 
been  considered  always  the  only  possible  forms  of  society.  This  deplo- 
rable error  has  been  the  life  of  property.  The  disadvantages  of  commun- 
ism are  so  obvious  that  its  critics  never  have  needed  to  employ  much 
eloquence  to  thoroughly  disgust  men  with  it.  The. irreparability  of  the 
injustice  which  it  causes,  the  violence  which  it  does  to  attractions  and 
repulsions,  the  yoke  of  iron  which  it  fastens  upon  the  will,  the  moral  tor- 
ture to  which  it  subjects  the  conscience,  the  debilitating  effect  which  it 
has  upon  society  ;  and,  to  sum  it  all  up,  the  pious  and  stupid  uniformity 


392 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


which  it  enforces  upon  the  free,  active,  reasoning,  unsubmissive  person- 
ality of  man  have  shocked  common  sense,  and  condemned  communism 
by  an  irrevocable  decree. 

The  authorities  and  examples  cited  in  its  favor  disprove  it.  The  com- 
munistic republic  of  Plato  involved  slavery  ;  that  of  Lycurgus  employed 
Helots,  whose  duty  it  was  to  produce  for  their  masters,  thus  enabling  the 
latter  to  devote  themselves  exclusively  to  athletic  sports  and  to  war.  Even 
J.  J.  Rousseau — confounding  communism  and  equality — has  said  some- 
where that,  without  slavery,  he  did  not  think  equality  of  conditions  pos- 
sible. The  communities  of  the  early  Church  did  not  last  the  first  century 
out,  and  soon  degenerated  into  monasteries.  In  those  of  the  Jesuits  of 
Paraguay,  the  condition  of  the  blacks  is  said  by  all  travellers  to  be  as  mis- 
erable as  that  of  slaves;  and  it  is  a  fact  that  the  good  Fathers  were  obliged 
to  surround  themselves  with  ditches  and  walls  to  prevent  their  new  con- 
verts from  escaping.  The  followers  of  Babceuf — guided  by  a  lofty  horror 
of  property  rather  than  by  any  definite  belief— were  ruined  by  exaggeration 
of  their  principles;  the  St.  Simonians,  lumping  communism  and  inequal- 
ity, passed  away  like  a  masquerade.  The  greatest  danger  to  which  society 
is  exposed  to-day  is  that  of  another  shipwreck  on  this  rock. 

Singularly  enough,  systematic  communism — the  deliberate  negation  of 
property — is  conceived  under  the  direct  influence  of  the  proprietary  preju- 
dice; and  property  is  the  basis  of  all  communistic  theories. 

The  members  of  a  community,  it  is  true,  have  no  private  property;  but 
the  community  is  proprietor,  and  proprietor  not  only  of  the  goods,  but 
of  the  persons  and  wills.  In  consequence  of  this  principle  of  absolute 
property,  labor,  which  should  be  only  a  condition  imposed  upon  man  by 
Nature,  becomes  in  all  communities  a  human  commandment,  and  there- 
fore odious.  Passive  obedience,  irreconcilable  with  a  reflecting  will,  is 
strictly  enforced.  Fidelity  to  regulations,  which  are  always  defective, 
however  wise  they  may  be  thought,  allows  of  no  complaint.  Life,  talent, 
and  all  the  human  faculties  are  the  property  of  the  State,  which  has  the 
right  to  use  them  as  it  pleases  for  the  common  good.  Private  associa- 
tions are  sternly  prohibited,  in  spite  of  the  likes  and  dislikes  of  different 
natures,  because  to  tolerate  them  would  be  to  introduce  small  communi- 
ties within  the  large  one,  and  consequently  private  property  ;  the  strong 
work  for  the  weak,  although  this  ought  to  be  left  to  benevolence,  and  not 
enforced,  advised,  or  enjoined;  the  industrious  work  for  the  lazy,  although 
this  is  unjust  ;  the  clever  work  for  the  foolish,  although  this  is  absurd  ; 
and,  finally,  man — casting  aside  his  personality,  his  spontaneity,  his 
genius,  and  his  affections — humbly  annihilates  himself  at  the  feet  of  the 
majestic  and  inflexible  Commune  ! 

Communism  is  inequality,  but  not  as  property  is.  Property  is  the  ex- 
ploitation of  the  weak  by  the  strong.  Communism  is  the  exploitation  of 
the  strong  by  the  weak.  In  property,  inequality  of  conditions  is  the  result 
of  force,  under  whatever  name  it  be  disguised:  physical  and  mental  force; 
force  of  events,  chance,  fortune  ;  force  of  accumulated  property,  etc.  In 
communism,  inequality  springs  from  placing  mediocrity  on  a  level  with 
excellence.  This  damaging  equation  is  repellent  to  the  conscience,  and 
causes  merit  to  complain  ;  for,  although  it  may  be  the  duty  of  the  strong 
to  aid  the  weak,  they  prefer  to  do  it  out  of  generosity, — they  never  will 
endure  a  comparison.  Give  them  equal  opportunities  of  labor,  and  equal 
wages,  but  never  allow  their  jealousy  to  be  awakened  by  mutual  suspicion 
of  unfaithfulness  in  the  performance  of  the  common  task. 

Communism  is  oppression  and  slavery.  Man  is  very  willing  to  obey 
the  law  of  duty,  serve  his  country,  and  oblige  his  friends  ;  but  he  wishes 


COMMUNISM. 


393 


to  labor  when  he  pleases,  where  he  pleases,  and  as  much  as  he  pleases. 
He  wishes  to  dispose  of  his  own  time,  to  be  governed  only  by  necessity, 
to  choose  his  friendships,  his  recreation,  and  his  discipline  ;  to  act  from 
judgment,  not  by  command  ;  to  sacrifice  himself  through  selfishness,  not 
through  servile  obligation.  Communism  is  essentially  opposed  to  the  free 
exercise  of  our  faculties,  to  our  noblest  desires,  to  our  deepest  feelings. 
Any  plan  which  could  be  devised  for  reconciling  it  with  the  demands  of 
the  individual  reason  and  will  would  end  only  in  changing  the  thing  while 
preserving  the  name.  Now,  if  we  are  honest  truth-seekers,  we  shall  avoid 
disputes  about  words. 

Thus,  communism  violates  the  sovereignty  of  the  conscience,  and  equal- 
ity :  the  first,  by  restricting  spontaneity  of  mind  and  heart,  and  freedom 
of  thought  and  action  ;  the  second,  by  placing  labor  and  laziness,  skill  and 
stupidity,  and  even  vice  and  virtue  on  an  equality  in  point  of  comfort.  For 
the  rest,  if  property  is  impossible  on  account  of  the  desire  to  accumulate, 
communism  would  soon  become  so  through  the  desire  to  shirk. 

This  extract  sufficiently  disposes  of  General  Walker's  claim. 
He  probably  has  never  read  it.  In  fact,  I  should  judge  from 
his  address  to  the  Trinity  Club  that  his  sole  knowledge  of 
Anarchism  was  derived  from  one  very  mild  article  written  by 
Prince  Kropotkine  for  the  Nineteenth  Century.  I  think  I  have 
proven  what  I  started  to  prove, — that  his  discriminations  be- 
tween Anarchists  have  no  existence  outside  of  his  own  imagi- 
nation, and  that  he  knows  next  to  nothing  of  this  subject,  upon 
which  he  professes  to  teach  others.  His  address  contained 
a  number  of  other  errors  which  I  might  as  easily  expose,  had 
not  this  paper  already  extended  beyond  the  limits  originally 
set  for  it.  Time  also  forbids  me  to  explain  the  true  idea  of 
Anarchism.  That  I  must  leave  for  some  future  occasion.  The 
lesson  that  I  have  endeavored  to  teach  to-day  I  find  stated  by 
General  Walker.  He  says  :  "Even  our  public  speakers  them- 
selves exhibit  a  gross  ignorance  of  the  principles  of  Anarchism 
and  Socialism  as  they  are  held  by  large  bodies  of  intelligent 
men."  Of  all  his  remarks  to  the  Trinity  Club,  that  was  nearly 
the  only  one  the  truth  of  which  he  succeeded  in  establishing; 
and  that  one  he  established,  not  by  argument,  but  by  the 
object-teacher's  method  of  personal  illustration  and  example. 


HERR  MOST  ON  "  LIBERTAS." 

[Liberty,  April  14,  1888.] 

It  is  due  to  John  Most  to  say  that,  in  his  paper  Freiheit,  he 
has  greeted  the  appearance  of  Liber tas  in  a  spirit  of  entire 
fairness  and  liberality,  at  the  same  time  that  he  has  not  hesi- 


394 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


tated  to  point  out  those  of  its  features  to  which  he  cannot 
award  approval.  Besides  giving  liberal  extracts  from  the  first 
number,  duly  credited,  he  devotes  nearly  a  column  and  a  half 
to  a  review  of  its  merits  and  demerits,  which  is  hearty  in  its 
commendation  and  frank  in  its  criticism.  Barring  the  use  in 
one  sentence  of  the  word  "  hypocritical,"  his  article  is  free 
from  those  abusive  epithets  of  which  he  has  heretofore  made 
me  a  target.  With  this  preface  of  thanks  for  both  his  praise 
and  his  censure,  I  propose  to  briefly  examine  the  latter  in  the 
same  spirit  in  which  it  is  offered. 

Herr  Most's  opinion  of  Libertas  may  be  thus  summed  up, — 
that  it  is  thoroughly  sound  in  its  antagonism  to  the  State 
and  utterly  unsound  in  its  championship  of  private  property. 
Whether  Libertas  champions  private  property  depends  entirely 
on  the  definition  given  to  that  term.  Defining  it  with  Prou- 
dhon  as  the  sum  total  of  legal  privileges  bestowed  upon  the 
tiolders  of  wealth,  Libertas  agrees  with  Proudhon  that  property 
is  robbery.  But  using  the  word  in  the  commoner  acceptation, 
as  denoting  the  laborer's  individual  possession  of  his  product 
or  of  his  proportional  share  of  the  joint  product  of  himself 
and  others,  Libertas  holds  that  property  is  liberty.  And  when- 
ever Proudhon,  for  the  time  being,  uses  the  word  in  the  latter 
sense,  he  too  upholds  property. .  But  it  is  precisely  in  this  sense 
of  individual  as  opposed  to  communistic  possession  that  Herr 
Most  opposes  property.  Hence,  when  he  prints  as  a  motto 
(as  he  often  does)  Proudhon's  phrase  "  Property  is  robbery," 
he  virtually  misrepresents  that  author  by  using  his  words  as  if 
they  were  intended  to  mean  diametrically  the  opposite  of  what 
the  author  himself  declared  them  to  mean.  If  property,  in 
the  sense  of  individual  possession,  is  liberty,  then  he  who  op- 
poses property  necessarily  upholds  authority — that  is,  the 
State — in  some  form  or  other,  and  he  who  would  deny  both 
the  State  and  property  at  once  becomes  thereby  inconsistent 
and  guilty  of  attempting  the  impossible. 

The  principal  argument  used  by  Herr  Most  against  Libertas 
is  that  it  ignores  the  necessity  of  production  on  the  large  scale 
now  and  hereafter, — a  necessity  which,  in  Herr  Most's  view, 
involves  the  exploitation  of  labor  by  capital  wherever  private 
property  prevails.  There  is  no  foundation  for  this  statement. 
Libertas  does  not  for  a  moment  deny  or  ignore  the  necessity 
of  production  on  the  large  scale.  It  does,  however,  seriously 
question  the  claim  that  such  production  must  always  involve 
large  concentration  of  capital,  and  emphatically  denies  that  it 
necessarily  involves  labor's  exploitation  unless  private  property 
is  abolished.    As  I  have  already  said  in  these  columns,  "  the 


COMMUNISM; 


395 


main  strength  of  the  argument  for  State  Socialism  and  Com- 
munism has  always  resided  in  the  claim,  till  lately  undisputed, 
that  the  permanent  tendency  of  progress  in  the  production  and 
distribution  of  wealth  is  in  the  direction  of  more  and  more 
complicated  and  costly  processes,  requiring  greater  and  greater 
concentration  of  capital  and  labor.  But  the  idea  is  beginning 
to  dawn  upon  minds — there  are  scientists  who  even  profess  to 
demonstrate  it  by  facts — that  the  tendency  referred  to  is  but 
a  phase  of  progress,  and  one  which  will  not  endure.  On  the 
contrary,  a  reversal  of  it  is  confidently  looked  for.  Processes 
are  expected  to  become  cheaper,  more  compact,  and  more 
easily  manageable,  until  they  shall  come  again  within  the  ca 
pacity  of  individuals  and  small  combinations.  Such  a  reversal 
has  already  been  experienced  in  the  course  taken  by  improve- 
ments in  implements  and  materials  of  destruction.  Military 
progress  was  for  a  long  time  toward  the  complex,  requiring  im- 
mense armies  and  vast  outlays.  But  the  tendency  of  more 
recent  discoveries  and  devices  has  been  toward  placing  indi- 
viduals on  a  par  with  armies  by  enabling  them  to  wield  powers 
which  no  aggregation  of  troops  can  withstand.  Already,  it  is 
believed,  Lieutenant  Zalinski  with  his  dynamite  gun  could 
shield  any  seaport  against  the  entire  British  navy.  With  the 
supplanting  of  steam  by  electricity  and  other  advances  of 
which  we  know  not,  it  seems  more  than  likely  that  the  con- 
structive capacity  of  the  individual  will  keep  pace  with  his 
destructive.  In  that  case  what  will  become  of  State  Socialism 
and  Communism  ?"  It  behooves  their  advocates  not  to  be  so 
cock-sure  as  they  have  been  heretofore  of  the  correctness  of 
this  major  premise  of  all  their  arguments. 

But  Herr  Most  may  claim  that  in  this  reasoning  the  element 
of  speculation  and  uncertainty  is  too  large  to  warrant  the 
placing  of  any  weight  upon  it.  Very  well,  then  ;  simply  re- 
affirming my  own  confidence  in  it,  I  will  let  it  go  for  what  it 
is  worth,  and  consider  at  once  the  question  whether  large  con- 
centration of  capital  for  production  on  the  large  scale  con- 
fronts us  with  the  disagreeable  alternative  of  either  abolishing 
private  property  or  continuing  to  hold  labor  under  the  capi- 
talistic yoke.  Herr  Most  promises  that,  if  I  will  show  him 
that  the  private  property  regime  is  compatible  with  production 
on  the  large  scale  without  the  exploitation  of  labor,  he  will 
stand  by  the  side  of  Libertas  in  its  favor.  This  promise  con- 
tains a  most  significant  admission.  If  Communism  is  really,  as 
Herr  Most  generally  claims,  no  infringement  of  liberty,  and 
if  in  itself  it  is  such  a  good  and  perfect  thing,  why  abandon  it 
for  private  property  simply  because  the  possibility  of  the 


396 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


latter's  existence  without  the  exploitation  of  labor  has  been 
demonstrated  ?  To  declare"  one's  willingness  to  do  so  is  plainly 
to  affirm  that,  exploitation  aside,  private  property  is  superior 
to  Communism,  and  that,  exploitation  admitted,  Communism 
is  chosen  only  as  the  lesser  evil.  I  take  note  of  this  admission, 
and  pass  on. 

Right  here,  however,  Herr  Most  qualifies  his  promise  by  plac- 
ing another  condition  upon  its  fulfilment.  I  must  not  only 
demonstrate  the  proposition  stipulated,  but  I  must  do  so  other- 
wise than  by  pointing  to  Proudhon's  banking  system.  This 
complicates  the  problem.  Show  me  that  A  is  equal  to  B,  says 
Herr  Most,  and  I  will  uphold  A  ;  only  you  must  not  show  it 
by  establishing  that  both  A  and  B  are  equal  to  C.  But  per- 
haps the  equality  of  both  A  and  B  to  C  is  the  only  proof  I 
have  of  the  equality  of  A  to  B.  Am  I  to  be  debarred,  then, 
from  making  the  demonstration  simply  because  this  form  of 
logic  is  not  agreeable  to  Herr  Most  ?  Not  at  all  ;  he  is  bound 
to  show  the  flaw  in  the  logic,  or  else  accept  its  conclusion. 
His  stipulation,  then,  that  I  must  not  point  to  Proudhon's 
banking  system  is  ridiculous,  inasmuch  as  this  banking  system, 
or  at  least  its  central  principle,  is  essential  to  the  demonstra- 
tion of  my  position.  I  offer  him  this  principle  as  conclusive 
proof  ;  he  must  show  its  error,  or  admit  the  claim.  It  cannot 
be  brushed  aside  with  a  contemptuous  wave  of  the  hand. 

Now,  what  is  this  principle?  Simply  the  freedom  of  credit 
and  the  resultant  organization  thereof  in  such  a  way  as  to  elimi- 
nate the  element  of  the  reward  of  capital  from  the  production 
and  distribution  of  wealth.  Herr  Most  will  not  dispute,  I 
think,  that  freedom  of  credit  leaves  private  property  intact  and 
even  increases  the  practicability  of  production  on  the  large 
scale.  The  only  question,  then,  is  whether  it  will  abolish 
usury  ;  for,  if  it  will  abolish  usury,  my  position  is  established, 
usury  being  but  another  name  for  the  exploitation  of  labor. 
The  argument  that  it  will  effect  such  abolition,  and  the  argu- 
ment therefore  which  Herr  Most  is  bound  to  destroy,  he  will 
find  set  forth  in  the  latter  half  of  my  paper  on  "  State  Social- 
ism and  Anarchism,"  printed  in  the  first  issue  of  Libertas.  If 
he  makes  no  answer,  the  private  property  plank  in  the  plat- 
form of  Libertas  remains  unimpaired  by  his  criticism  ;  if,  on 
the  other  hand,  he  attempts  an  answer,  then  we  shall  see  what 
there  is  further  to  be  said. 

But  Herr  Most's  criticism  is  not  aimed  at  the  platform  alone; 
he  is  especially  severe  upon  the  tactics  of  Libertas.  It  is  here 
that  he  crosses  the  line  of  courteous  criticism,  and  becomes 
abusive  by  characterizing  as  "  hypocritical  "  the  declaration  of 


COMMUNISM. 


397 


Libertas  that,  as  long  as  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press  is 
not  struck  down,  there  should  be  no  resort  to  physical  force 
in  the  struggle  against  oppression.  That  Libertas  is  hypocriti- 
cal in  this  position  he  infers  from  the  fact  that  it  now  dis- 
countenances physical  force,  although  five  men  have  been 
murdered,  others  are  in  prison,  and  still  others  are  in  danger 
of  imprisonment,  for  having  exercised  the  right  of  free  speech. 
Herr  Most  apparently  forgets  that  Freiheit  is  still  published  in 
New  York,  the  Alarm  in  Chicago,  and  Liberty  and  Libertas  in 
Boston,  and  that  all  these  papers,  if  not  allowed  to  say  every- 
thing they  would  like  to,  are  able  to  say  all  that  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  say  in  order  to  finally  achieve  their  end,  the 
triumph  of  liberty.  It  must  not  be  inferred  that,  because 
Libertas  thinks  it  may  become  advisable  to  use  force  to  secure 
free  speech,  it  would  therefore  sanction  a  bloody  deluge  as 
soon  as  free  speech  had  been  struck  down  in  one,  a  dozen,  or 
a  hundred  instances.  Not  until  the  gag  had  become  com- 
pletely efficacious  would  Libertas  advise  that  last  resort,  the 
use  of  force.  And  this,  far  from  showing  hypocrisy,  is  the 
best  evidence  of  the  sincerity  of  this  journal's  utter  disbelief 
in  force  as  a  solution  of  economic  evils.  If  there  is  hypocrisy 
anywhere,  it  is  on  the  side  of  those  who,  affecting  to  think 
force  a  deplorable  thing  only  to  be  resorted  to  for  purposes 
of  defence,  are  eagerly  watching  for  the  commission  of  offen- 
ces in  the  hope  of  finding  a  pretext  for  the  inauguration  of  an 
era  of  terror  and  slaughter  hitherto  unparalleled  in  history. 


STILL  AVOIDING  THE  ISSUE. 

{Liberty,  May  12,  1888.] 

As  I  expected,  Herr  Most,  in  his  controversy  with  me  upon 
private  property,  Communism,  and  the  State,  is  as  reluctant  as 
ever  to  come  to  close  quarters  in  an  attempt  to  destroy  my 
main  position,  and,  for  sole  response  to  my  challenge  to  do 
so,  crouches  behind  the  name  of  Marx,  not  daring  even  to 
attempt  upon  his  own  account  the  use  of  the  weapons  with 
which  Marx  has  assailed  it.  Herr  Most  had  promised  to 
accept  private  property  if  I  would  show  him  that  it  is  com- 
patible with  production  on  the  large  scale  without  the  exploi- 
tation of  labor.  He  warned  me,  to  be  sure,  against  showing 
this  by  Proudhon's  banking  system.  But  I  answered  that  he 
is  bound  to  accept  my  proposition  on  the  strength  of  whatever 


398 


INSTEAD   OF   A  BOOK. 


proof  I  offer,  or  else  demonstrate  that  the  proof  offered  is  no 
proof  at  all, — in  other  words,  that  he  cannot  reject  my  evi- 
dence without  first  refuting  it.  My  proof,  I  then  told  him, 
consists  precisely  in  that  principle  of  freedom  and  organization 
of  credit  which  is  embodied  in  Proudhon's  banking  system  and 
other  systems  of  a  similar  nature,  and  I  referred  him  to  a  recent 
essay  in  which  I  have  explained  the  process  whereby  freely 
organized  credit  would  abolish  usury — that  is,  the  exploitation 
of  labor — and  make  production  on  the  large  scale  easier  than 
ever  without  interfering  with  the  institution  of  private  prop- 
erty. 

Now  it  would  naturally  be  assumed  that,  in  answer  to  this, 
some  examination  would  be  made  of  the  process  referred  to 
and  the  flaw  in  it  be  pointed  out.  But  did  Herr  Most  do  any- 
thing of  the  kind  ?  Not  he.  His  only  answer  is  that  Marx 
disposed  of  Proudhon's  banking  system  long  ago,  that  it  is 
fifty  years  behind  the  times,  and  that  it  is  not  at  all  clear  that 
there  is  any  foundation  for  the  claim  that,  with  the  prevailing 
inequalities  of  property,  all  could  obtain  credit.  No,  Herr 
Most,  nor  is  it  clear  that  any  such  claim  was  ever  made  by 
any  sane  champion  of  the  organization  of  credit.  The  real 
claim  is,  not  that  all  could  straightway  get  credit  if  credit  were 
not  monopolized,  but  that,  if  all  or  a  half  or  a  quarter  of  such 
credit  as  could  be  at  once  obtained  under  a  free  system  should 
be  utilized,  a  tremendous  impetus  would  thereby  be  given  to 
production  and  enterprise  which  would  gradually  increase  the 
demand  for  labor  and  therefore  the  rate  of  wages  and  there- 
fore the  number  of  people  able  to  get  credit,  until  at  last  every 
laborer  would  be  able  to  say  to  his  employer  :  "  Here,  boss, 
you  are  a  good  business  manager,  and  I  am  willing  to  continue 
to  work  under  your^superintendence  on  a  strictly  equitable 
basis  ;  but,  unless  you  are  willing  to  content  yourself  with  a 
share  of  our  joint  product  proportional  to  your  share  of  the 
labor  and  give  me  the  balance  for  my  share  of  the  labor,  I  will 
work  for  you  no  longer,  but  will  set  up  in  business  for  myself 
on  the  capital  which  I  can  now  obtain  on  my  credit."  Herr 
Most's  misstatement  of  the  claim  made  by  the  friends  of  free 
banking  shows  that  he  has  no  knowledge  of  their  arguments  or 
system,  which  probably  explains  his  reluctance  to  discuss  them 
otherwise  than  by  reiteration  of  the  magic  name  of  Marx. 
Proudhon's  banking  system  may  be  fifty  years  behind  the 
times,  but  it  is  evidently  far  in  advance  of  the  point  which 
Herr  Most  has  reached  in  the  path  of  economic  investiga- 
tion. 

Even  more  careful  is  the  wary  editor  of  Freiheit  to  avoid 


COMMUNISM. 


399 


the  following  question,  which  I  asked  him  a  propos  of  his 
promise:  "  If  Communism  is  really,  as  Herr  Most  generally 
claims,  no  infringement  of  liberty,  and  if  in  itself  it  is  such  a 
good  and  perfect  thing,  why  abandon  it  for  private  property 
simply  because  the  possibility  of  the  latter's  existence  without 
the  exploitation  of  labor  has  been  demonstrated?  To  declare 
one's  willingness  to  do  so  is  plainly  to  affirm  that,  exploitation 
aside,  private  property  is  superior  to  Communism,  and  that, 
exploitation  admitted,  Communism  is  chosen  only  as  the 
lesser  evil."  Herr  Most  knew  that  it  would  never  do  to  admit 
that  Communism  curtails  liberty.  Yet  he  could  not  answer 
this  question  without  admitting  it.  So  he  prudently  let  it 
alone. 

But  what,  then,  does  he  say  in  his  three-column  article  ? 

Well,  for  one  thing,  he  tries  to  make  his  readers  think  that 
I  offered  my  incidental  remarks,  rather  suggestive  than  conclu- 
sive, regarding  the  likelihood  that  the  Communists'  position, 
being  based  on  a  supposed  necessity  of  great  combinations  in 
order  to  produce  on  the  large  scale,  might  soon  be  undermined 
by  the  tendency,  of  which  symptoms  are  beginning  to  appear, 
towards  a  simplification  and  cheapening  of  machinery, — he 
tries  to  make  his  readers  think,  I  say,  that  I  offered  these 
remarks  as  a  necessary  link  in  my  argument.  "  On  such 
grounds,"  he  says,  "  we  are  expected  to  believe,"  etc.,  giving 
no  hint  of  my  express  declaration  that  I  offered  this  idea  for 
what  it  was  worth  and  not  as  essential  to  my  position. 

Nevertheless  it  is  not  easy  to  see  why  he  should  regard  this 
thought  as  so  utterly  chimerical,  when  he  finds  it  so  easy,  in 
order  to  show  Communism  to  be  practicable,  to  assume  that 
the  time  is  not  far  distant  when  wealth  will  be  so  abundant 
that  individuals  will  not  think  of  quarrelling  over  its  posses- 
sion, but  will  live  as  birds  do  in  their  hemp-seed.  Of  the  two 
hypotheses  the  latter  seems  to  me  the  more  visionary.  Cer- 
tainly great  strides  are  yet  to  be  taken  in  labor-saving,  and  I 
do  not  doubt  at  all  that  a  state  of  society  will  be  attained  in 
which  every  sound  individual  will  be  able  to  secure  a  com- 
fortable existence  by  a  very  few  hours  of  toil  daily.  But  that 
there  will  ever  be  any  such  proportion  between  human  labor 
and  the  objects  of  human  consumption  as  now  exists  between 
bird  labor  and  hemp-seed,  or  that  land  and  other  capital  will 
ever  be  superabundant  in  the  same  sense  that  water,  light, 
and  air  are  superabundant,  is  inadmissible.  If,  however,  the 
means  of  life  shall  ever  become  so  utterly  divorced  from 
human  toil  that  all  men  look  on  all  wealth  as  air  is  now  looked 
upon,  I  will  then  admit  that,  so  far  as  material  enjoyment  is 


400 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


concerned,  Communism  will  be  practicable  (I  do  not  say  ad- 
visable) without  violation  of  liberty.  Until  then,  I  must  insist 
that  a  State  will  be  necessary  to  its  realization  and  mainte- 
nance. 

But,  Herr  Most  asks  me,  if  respect  for  private  property  is 
conceivable  without  a  State,  why  is  not  Communism  so  con- 
ceivable ?  Simply  because  the  only  force  ever  necessary  to 
secure  respect  for  private  property  is  the  force  of  defence, — 
the  force  which  protects  the  laborer  in  the  possession  of  his 
product  or  in  the  free  exchange  thereof, — while  the  force  re- 
quired to  secure  Communism  is  the  force  of  offence, — the  force 
which  compels  the  laborer  to  pool  his  product  with  the  prod- 
ucts of  all  and  forbids  him  to  sell  his  labor  or  his  product. 
Now,  force  of  offence  is  the  principle  of  the  State,  while  force 
of  defence  is  one  aspect  of  the  principle  of  liberty.  This  is 
the  reason  why  private  property  does  not  imply  a  State,  while 
Communism  does.  Herr  Most  seems  to  be  as  ignorant  of  the 
real  nature  of  the  State  as  he  is  of  Proudhon's  banking  system. 
In  opposing  it  he  acts,  not  as  an  intelligent  foe  of  Authority, 
but  simply  as  a  rebel  against  the  powers  that  be. 

What  is  the  use,  in  fact,  of  discussing  with  him  at  all?  Does 
he  not  confess  at  the  very  outset  of  the  article  I  am  now  ex- 
amining that,  although  he  has  racked  his  brains,  they  refuse 
to  perceive  my  distinction  between  the  laborer's  individual 
possession  of  his  product  and  the  sum  total  of  legal  privileges 
bestowed  upon  the  holders  of  wealth  ?  Is  there  any  hope  that 
such  a  mind  will  ever  grasp  an  economic  law  ?  The  reason  he 
gives  for  his  inability  to  recognize  this  distinction  is  his  con- 
viction that  private  possession  and  privilege  are  inseparable. 
The  more  one  calls  his  own,  he  says,  the  less  others  will  be 
able  to  possess.  This  is  not  true  where  all  property  rests  on 
a  labor  title,  and  no  other  property  do  I  favor.  It  is  only  true 
of  the  increase  of  property  through  usury.  But  usury,  as  has 
already  been  shown,  rests  on  privilege.  When  the  property  of 
one  increases  through  an  advance  in  the  productivity  of  his 
labor,  the  property  of  others,  far  from  decreasing  on  that  ac- 
count, increases  to  an  almost  equal  extent.  This  year  A  pro- 
duces 100  in  hats  and  B  100  in  shoes.  Each  consumes  50  in  his 
own  product,  and  exchanges  the  remaining  50  for  the  other's 
remaining  50.  Suppose  that  next  year  A's  production  remains 
the  same,  but  that  B's,  with  no  extra  labor,  rises  to  200.  In 
that  case  A's  remaining  50,  instead  of  exchanging  for  B's  re- 
maining 50  as  this  year,  will  exchange  for  100  in  B's  product. 
Under  private  possession,  unaccompanied  by  usury,  more  for 


COMMUNISM. 


401 


one  man  means,  not  less  for  another  man,  but  more  for  all 
men.    Where,  then,  is  the  privilege  ? 

But,  after  all,  it  makes  very  little  difference  to  Herr  Most 
what  a  man  believes  in  economics.  The  test  of  fellowship 
with  him  lies  in  acceptance  of  dynamite  as  a  cure-all.  Though 
I  should  prove  that  my  economic  views,  if  realized,  would 
turn  our  social  system  inside  out,  he  would  not  therefore  re- 
gard me  as  a  revolutionist.  He  declares  outright  that  I  am  no 
revolutionist,  because  the  thought  of  the  coming  revolution 
(by  dynamite,  he  means)  makes  my  flesh  creep.  Well,  I  frankly 
confess  that  I  take  no  pleasure  in  the  thought  of  bloodshed 
and  mutilation  and  death.  At  these  things  my  feelings  revolt. 
And  if  delight  in  them  is  a  requisite  of  a  revolutionist,  then 
indeed  I  am  no  revolutionist.  When  revolutionist  and  can- 
nibal become  synonyms,  count  me  out,  if  you  please.  But, 
though  my  feelings  revolt,  I  am  not  mastered  by  them  or 
made  a  coward  by  them.  More  than  from  dynamite  and 
blood  do  I  shrink  from  the  thought  of  a  permanent  system  of 
society  involving  the  slow  starvation  of  the  most  industrious 
and  deserving  of  its  members.  If  I  should  ever  become  con- 
vinced that  the  policy  of  bloodshed  is  necessary  to  end  our 
social  system,  the  loudest  of  to-day's  shriekers  for  blood  would 
not  surpass  me  in  the  stoicism  with  which  I  would  face  the 
inevitable.  Indeed,  a  plumb-liner  to  the  last,  I  am  confident 
that  under  such  circumstances  many  who  now  think  me 
chicken-hearted  would  condemn  the  stony-heartedness  with 
which  I  should  favor  the  utter  sacrifice  of  every  feeling  of  pity 
to  the  necessities  of  the  terroristic  policy.  Neither  fear  nor 
sentimentalism,  then,  dictates  my  opposition  to  forcible 
methods.  Such  being  the  case,  how  stupid,  how  unfair,  in 
Herr  Most,  to  picture  me  as  crossing  myself  at  the  mention  of 
the  word  revolution  simply  because  I  steadfastly  act  on  my 
well-known  belief  that  force  cannot  substitute  truth  for  a  lie 
in  political  economy  ! 


HERR  MOST  DISTILLED  AND  CONSUMED. 

[Liberty,  June  9,  1888.] 

After  proclaiming,  in  Freiheit  of  May  19,  his  intention  of 
proceeding  to  my  final  demolition,  Herr  Most,  in  Freiheit  of 
May  26,  closes  his  side  of  the  controversy  with  me  with  such 
a  homoeopathic  dilution  of  his  preceding  articles  that  it  is 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


scarcely  worth  attention.  Summarized,  his  positions  are  that 
the  controversy  is  unequal,  because  he  quotes  and  then  criti- 
cises, while  I  criticise  without  quotation;  that  I  am  the  dodger, 
not  he,  because  the  essential  question  is  the  private  property 
question,  while  I  insist  on  discussing  Proudhon's  banking  sys- 
I  tern  ;  that  he  has  read  Liberty  for  six  years,  and  has  found  no 
plausible  defence  of  that  system  in  its  pages,  and  that  the 
statement  in  my  last  reply,  probably  covers  that  system;  that 
the  system  has  been  put  into  operation  in  Germany  and  else- 
where with  no  further  effect  than  to  enable  the  smaller  bour- 
geois to  hold  out  a  little  longer  against  the  larger  ;  that  I  only 
half  understand  Proudhon's  works  ;  that,  if  I  would  read  the 
whole  of  Freiheit  instead  of  only  such  portions  as  relate  directly 
to  me,  I  might  know  something  about  the  economics  of  Social- 
ism ;  that  Proudhon's  banking  system  has  no  longer  a  single 
champion  in  Europe  ;  and  that  "  if  we  are  once  through  with 
the  political  tyrants,  then  the  economic  ones  will  no  longer  be 
dangerous  to  us,  for  the  latter  will  surely  have  had  their  necks 
broken  with  the  former,  especially  since  both  kinds  are  essen- 
tially one  and  the  same  persons." 

I  answer,  with  like  brevity  and  succinctness,  that  I  have  ac- 
curately represented  Herr  Most  by  restatements,  while  he  has 
^/^represented  me  by  garbled  quotations  ;  that  the  essential 
question  is  not  the  private  property  question,  since  Herr  Most 
promised  to  abandon  Communism  for  private  property  on 
being  shown  that  the  latter  is  compatible  with  production  on 
the  large  scale  without  the  exploitation  of  labor,  which  im- 
mediately made  the  arguments  on  which  the  claim  of  such 
compatibility  rests  the  essential  question  ;  that  the  principle 
of  Proudhon's  banking  system  has  been  expounded  repeatedly 
in  Liberty,  and  far  more  fully  and  adequately  than  in  the  pres- 
ent controversy  ;  that  neither  his  system  nor  any  similar  sys- 
tem was  ever  put  into  unmolested  operation,  so  far  as  I  know, 
and  that,  if  my  knowledge  on  this  point  is  deficient,  it  is  Herr 
Most's  business  to  supply  the  deficiency  by  distinct  specifica- 
tion of  facts  ;  that,  other  things  being  equal,  those  countries 
and  those  periods  have  been  the  most  prosperous  in  which 
financial  institutions  have  most  nearly  approached  Prou- 
dhon's idea  ;  that  to  understand  half  of  Proudhon's  works  is 
better  than  to  understand  none  of  them  ;  that  a  number  of  in- 
telligent persons  whom  I  know,  and  who  read  Freiheit  thor- 
oughly, tell  me  that  they  have  failed  to  derive  any  such  benefit 
from  it  as  Herr  Most  promises  me  ;  that  within  a  very  few 
years  a  book  of  several  hundred  pages  has  been  published  in 
Paris,  ably  stating  and  defending  Proudhon's  banking  theories, 


COMMUNISM. 


— "  La  Question  Sociale,"  by  Emile  Chevalet  ;  that  many 
ideas  of  transcendent  importance  have  been  launched  into  the 
world,  only  to  lie  dormant  under  the  pressure  of  reaction  for 
long  years  before  being  revived  and  realized  ;  and  that  it  is 
quite  true  that  economic  privilege  must  disappear  as  a  re- 
sult of  the  abolition  of  political  tyranny, — a  fact  which  the  In- 
dividualistic Anarchists  have  always  relied  on  against  the 
"  Communistic  Anarchists,"  whose  claim  has  steadily  been 
that  to  abolish  the  State  is  not  enough,  and  that  a  separate 
campaign  against  economic  privilege  is  necessary.  In  this  last 
sentence  of  Herr  Most's  article  he  gives  away  his  whole  case. 


SHOULD  LABOR  BE  PAID  OR  NOT? 

[Liberty,  April  28,  1888.] 

In  No.  121  of  Liberty,  criticising  an  attempt  of  Kropotkine 
to  identify  Communism  and  Individualism,  I  charged  him 
with  ignoring  "  the  real  question  whether  Communism  will 
permit  the  individual  to  labor  independently,  own  tools,  sell 
his  labor  or  his  products,  and  buy  the  labor  or  products  of 
others."  In  Herr  Most's  eyes  this  is  so  outrageous  that,  in  re- 
printing it,  he  puts  the  words  "  the  labor  of  others  "  in  large 
black  type.  Most  being  a  Communist,  he  must,  to  be  con- 
sistent, object  to  the  purchase  and  sale  of  anything  whatever ; 
but  why  he  should  particularly  object  to  the  purchase  and 
sale  of  labor  is  more  than  I  can  understand.  Really,  in  the 
last  analysis,  labor  is  the  only  thing  that  has  any  title  to  be 
bought  or  sold.  Is  there  any  just  basis  of  price  except 
cost  ?  And  is  there  anything  that  costs  except  labor  or  suffer- 
ing (another  name  for  labor)  ?  Labor  should  be  paid  !  Hor- 
rible, isn't  it  ?  Why,  I  thought  that  the  fact  that  it  is  not 
paid  was  the  whole  grievance.  "  Unpaid  labor  "  has  been  the 
chief  complaint  of  all  Socialists,  and  that  labor  should  get  its 
reward  has  been  their  chief  contention.  Suppose  I  had  said 
to  Kropotkine  that  the  real  question  is  whether  Communism 
will  permit  individuals  to  exchange  their  labor  or  products  on 
their  own  terms.  Would  Herr  Most  have  been  so  shocked  ? 
Would  he  have  printed  that  in  black  type  ?  Yet  in  another 
form  I  said  precisely  that. 

If  the  men  who  oppose  wages — that  is,  the  purchase  and 
sale  of  labor — were  capable  of  analyzing  their  thought  and  feel- 
ings, they  would  see  that  what  really  excites  their  anger  is  not 


404 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


the  fact  that  labor  is  bought  and  sold,  but  the  fact  that  one  class 
of  men  are  dependent  for  their  living  upon  the  sale  of  their 
labor,  while  another  class  of  men  are  relieved  of  the  necessity 
of  labor  by  being  legally  privileged  to  sell  something  that  is 
not  labor,  and  that,  but  for  the  privilege,  would  be  enjoyed  by 
all  gratuitously.  And  to  such  a  state  of  things  I  am  as  much 
opposed  as  any  one.  But  the  minute  you  remove  privilege, 
the  class  that  now  enjoy  it  will  be  forced  to  sell  their  labor, 
and  then,  when  there  will  be  nothing  but  labor  with  which  to 
buy  labor,  the  distinction  between  wage-payers  and  wage-re- 
ceivers will  be  wiped  out,  and  every  man  will  be  a  laborer  ex- 
changing with  fellow-laborers.  Not  to  abolish  wages,  but  to 
make  every  man  dependent  upon  wages  and  secure  to  every 
man  his  whole  wages  is  the  aim  of  Anarchistic  Socialism. 
What  Anarchistic  Socialism  aims  to  abolish  is  usury.  It  does 
not  want  to  deprive  labor  of  its  reward  ;  it  wants  to  deprive 
capital  of  its  reward.  It  does  not  hold  that  labor  should  not 
be  sold  ;  it  holds  that  capital  should  not  be  hired  at  usury. 

But,  says  Herr  Most,  this  idea  of  a  free  labor  market  from 
which  privilege  is  eliminated  is  nothing  but  "  consistent  Man- 
chesterism." Well,  what  better  can  a  man  who  professes 
Anarchism  want  than  that  ?  For  the  principle  of  Manches- 
terism  is  liberty,  and  consistent  Manchesterism  is  consistent 
adherence  to  liberty.  The  only  inconsistency  of  the  Man- 
chester men  lies  in  their  infidelity  to  liberty  in  some  of  its 
phases.  And  this  infidelity  to  liberty  in  some  of  its  phases 
is  precisely  the  fatal  inconsistency  of  the  Freiheit  school, — the 
only  difference  between  its  adherents  and  the  Manchester  men 
being  that  in  many  of  the  phases  in  which  the  latter  are  in- 
fidel the  former  are  faithful,  while  in  many  of  those  in  which 
the  latter  are  faithful  the  former  are  infidel.  Yes,  genuine 
Anarchism  is  consistent  Manchesterism,  and  Communistic  or 
pseudo-Anarchism  is  inconsistent  Manchesterism.  "  I  thank 
thee,  Jew,  for  teaching  me  that  word." 


DOES  COMPETITION  MEAN  WAR  r 

{Liberty,  August  4.  1888.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty : 

Your  thought-provoking  controversy  with  Herr  Most  suggests  this 
question  :  Whether  is  Individualism  or  Communism  more  consistent  with 
a  society  resting  upon  credit  and  mutual  confidence,  or,  to  put  it  another 
way,  whether  is  competition  or  co-operation  the  truest  expression  of  that 


COMMUNISM. 


405 


mutual  trust  and  fraternal  good-will  which  alone  can  replace  present 
forms  of  authority,  usages  and  customs  as  the  social  bond  of  union  ? 

The  answer  seems  obvious  enough.  Competition,  if  it  means  anything 
at  all,  means  war,  and,  so  far  from  tending  to  enhance  the  growth  of 
mutual  confidence,  must  generate  division  and  hostility  among  men.  If 
egoistic  liberty  demands  competition  as  its  necessary  corollary,  every 
man  becomes  a  social  Ishmaei.  The  state  of  veiled  warfare  thus  implied 
where  underhand  cunning  takes  the  place  of  open  force  is  doubtless  not 
without  its  attractions  to  many  minds,  but  to  propose  mutual  confidence 
as  its  regulative  principle  has  all  the  appearance  of  making  a  declaration 
of  war  in  terms  of  peace.  No,  surely  credit  and  mutual  confidence,  with 
everything  thereby  implied,  rightly  belong  to  an  order  of  things  where 
unity  and  good-fellowship  characterize  all  human  relations,  and  would 
flourish  best  where  co-operation  finds  its  complete  expression, — viz.,  in 
Communism.  W.  T.  Horn. 

The  supposition  that  competition  means  war  rests  upon  old 
notions  and  false  phrases  that  have  been  long  current,  but  are 
rapidly  passing  into  the  limbo  of  exploded  fallacies.  Compe- 
tition means  war  only  when  it  is  in  some  way  restricted,  either 
in  scope  or  intensity, — that  is,  when  it  is  not  perfectly  free  com- 
petition ;  for  then  its  benefits  are  won  by  one  class  at  the  ex- 
pense of  another,  instead  of  by  all  at  the  expense  of  nature's 
forces.  When  universal  and  unrestricted,  competition  means 
the  most  perfect  peace  and  the  truest  co  operation  ;  for  then  it 
becomes  simply  a  test  of  forces  resulting  in  their  most  advan- 
tageous utilization.  As  soon  as  the  demand  for  labor  begins 
to  exceed  the  supply,  making  it  an  easy  matter  for  everyone  to 
get  work  at  wages  equal  to  his  product,  it  is  for  the  interest  of 
all  (including  his  immediate  competitors)  that  the  best  man 
should  win  ;  which  is  another  way  of  saying  that,  where  free- 
dom prevails,  competition  and  co-operation  are  identical.  For 
further  proof  and  elaboration  of  this  proposition  I  refer  Mr. 
Horn  to  Andrews's  "  Science  of  Society  "  and  Fowler's  pam- 
phlets on  "  Co-operation."  The  real  problem,  then,  is  to  make 
the  demand  for  labor  greater  than  the  supply,  and  this  can 
only  be  done  through  competition  in  the  supply  of  money  or 
use  of  credit.  This  is  abundantly  shown  in  Greene's  "  Mutual 
Banking  "  and  the  financial  writings  of  Proudhon  and  Spooner. 
My  correspondent  seems  filled  with  the  sentiment  of  good-fel- 
lowship, but  ignorant  of  the  science  thereof,  and  even  of  the 
fact  that  there  is  such  a  science.  He  will  find  this  science 
expounded  in  the  works  already  named.  If,  after  studying  and 
mastering  these,  he  still  should  have  any  doubts,  Liberty  will 
then  try  to  set  them  at  rest. 


406 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


COMPETITION  AND  MONOPOLY  CONFOUNDED. 

[Liberty,  September  i,  1888.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

Does  competition  mean  war  ?  you  ask,  and  then  go  on  to  answer : 

"  The  supposition  that  competition  means  war  rests  upon  old  notions 
and  false  phrases  that  have  been  long  current,  but  are  rapidly  passing  into 
the  limbo  of  exploded  fallacies." 

Pardon  me,  Mr.  Tucker,  but  are  you  quite  sure  that  the  supposition  in 
question  rests  upon  nothing  more  than  "  old  notions  and  false  phrases  "  ? 
Go  out  into  the  highways  and  byeways  of  the  work-a-day  world,  look 
around  you,  and  then  tell  us  candidly  if  what  you  see  there  is  likely  to 
inspire  any  lover  of  his  kind  with  a  wish  to  foster  competition. 

Ah  !  but  you  reply  :  "This  is  not  free  competition  ;  this  is  monopoly 
and  privilege." 

Exactly  so,  but  what  is  monopoly  but  the  very  soul  of  competition  ?  I 
venture  to  submit  that  it  is  not  for  wealth  per  se  men  strive,  but  for  the 
mastership  it  confers  ;  hence,  if  you  deny  the  spoils  of  victory  to  the 
victor,  you  sheathe  the  sword  forever.  Monopolies  and  privileges  of 
every  kind  are  nothing  more  than  resultants  of  a  competition  as  free  as 
nature  could  make  it,  for  even  the  grand  old  Sphinx  herself  has  not  been 
able  to  evolve  "equal  liberty  "  from  the  free  competition  of  unequal 
forces. 

When  the  benefits  of  competition  cease  to  "be  won  by  one  class  at  the 
expense  of  another,"  and  when  they  are  shared  "  by  all  at  the  expense  of 
nature's  forces,"  competition  loses  its  raison  d'Hre  and  dies. 

When  lower  and  semi-barbarous  economic  forms  are  subjected  to  the 
strong  solvent  action  of  higher  ethical  concepts,  they  disappear  ;  that  is 
to  say,  when  mutual  confidence  and  good-fellowship  prevail  over  hostility 
and  love  of  mastership,  competition  must  give  place  to  co-operation  ; 
hence,  to  my  mind  there  is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  competi- 
tion means  war  so  long  as  it  is  the  economic  expression  of  hostility  and 
mastership,  and  after  that  it  will  mean — nothing.  "  Equal  liberty,"  how- 
ever, would  still  remain,  for  what  is  it  at  bottom  but  community  of  in- 
terest ?  W.  T.  Horn. 

What  the  person  who  goes  out  into  the  work-a-day  world 
will  see  there  depends  very  much  upon  the  power  of  his  mental 
vision.  If  that  is  strong  enough  to  enable  him  to  see  that  the 
evils  around  him  are  caused  by  a  prohibition  of  competition 
in  certain  directions,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  he  will  be  filled 
with  a  "  wish  to  foster  competition."  Such,  however,  will  not 
be  the  case  with  a  man  who  so  misapprehends  competition  as 
to  suppose  that  monopoly  is  its  soul.  Instead  of  its  soul,  it  is 
its  antithesis. 

Whatever  the  reason  for  which  men  strive  for  wealth,  as  a 
general  thing  they  get  it,  not  by  competition,  but  by  the  appli- 
cation of  force  to  the  suppression  of  certain  kinds  of  compe- 
tition,— in  other  words,  by  governmental  institution  and  pro- 
tection of  monopoly. 


COMMUNISM. 


407 


Inasmuch  as  the  monopolist  is  the  victor,  it  is  true  that  to 
deny  him  the  spoils  of  victory  is  to  sheathe  the  sword  of  mo- 
nopoly. But  you  do  not  thereby  sheathe  the  sword  of  compe- 
tition (if  you  insist  on  calling  it  a  sword),  because  competition 
yields  no  spoils  to  the  victor,  but  only  wages  to  the  laborer. 

When  my  correspondent  says  that  all  monopolies  are  "  re- 
sultants of  a  competition  as  free  as  nature  could  make  it,"  he 
makes  competition  inclusive  of  the  struggle  between  invasive 
forces,  whereas  he  ought  to  know  that  free  competition,  in  the 
economic  sense  of  the  phrase,  implies  the  suppression  of  in- 
vasive forces,  leaving  a  free  field  for  the  exercise  of  those  that 
are  non-invasive. 

If  a  man  were  to  declare  that,  when  the  benefits  of  labor 
cease  to  be  won  by  one  class  at  the  expense  of  another  and 
when  they  are  shared  by  all  at  the  expense  of  nature's  forces, 
labor  loses  its  raison  d'etre  and  dies,  his  sanity  would  not  long 
remain  unquestioned  ;  but  the  folly  of  such  an  utterance  is 
not  lessened  an  iota  by  the  substitution  of  the  word  competition 
for  the  word  labor.  As  long  as  the  gastric  juice  continues jto 
insist  upon  its  rights,  I  fancy  that  neither  labor  nor  competi- 
tion will  lack  a  raison  d'etre,  even  though  the  laborer  and  com- 
petitor should  find  himself  under  the  necessity  of  wresting  his 
"  spoils  "  from  the  bosom  of  his  mother  earth  instead  of  from 
the  pocket  of  his  brother  man. 

In  Mrs.  Glass's  recipe  for  cooking  a  hare,  the  first  thing  was 
to  catch  the  hare.  So  in  Mr.  Horn's  recipe  for  the  solution 
of  economic  forms  in  ethical  concepts,  the  first  thing  is  to  get 
the  concepts.  Now,  the  concepts  of  mutual  confidence  and 
good-fellowship  are  not  to  be  obtained  by  preaching, — other- 
wise the  church  militant  would  long  ago  have  become  the 
church  triumphant;  or  by  force, — otherwise  progress  would 
have  gone  hand  in  hand  with  authority  instead  of  with  liberty  ; 
but  only  by  unrestricted  freedom, — that  is,  by  competition,  the 
necessary  condition  of  confidence,  fellowship,  and  co-opera- 
tion, which  can  never  come  as  long  as  monopoly,  "  the  eco- 
nomic expression  of  hostility  and  mastership,"  continues  to 
exist. 


ON  PICKET  DUTY. 

In  a  speech  recently  delivered  in  Paris,  Kropotkine  said  : 
"  As  the  idea  of  the  inviolability  of  the  individual's  home  life 
has  developed  during  the  second  half  of  our  century,  so  the 


4o8 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


idea  of  collective  right  to  everything  that  serves  in  the  pro- 
duction of  wealth  has  developed  in  the  masses.  This  is  a  fact  ; 
and  whoever  wants  to  live,  as  we  do,  with  the  life  of  the 
people  and  follow  its  development  will  admit  that  this  affirm- 
ation is  but  an  accurate  summary  of  popular  aspirations." 
Then  Kropotkinian  Anarchism  means  the  liberty  to  eat,  but 
not  to  cook  ;  to  drink,  but  not  to  brew  ;  to  wear,  but  not  to 
spin  ;  to  dwell,  but  not  to  build  ;  to  give,  but  not  to  sell  or 
buy  ;  to  think,  but  not  to  print  ;  to  speak,  but  not  to  hire  a 
hall ;  to  dance,  but  not  to  pay  the  fiddler.  O  Absurdity  ! 
is  there  any  length  to  which  thou  wilt  not  go  ? — Liberty,  July 
3,  1886. 

The  Socialistic  municipality  of  St.  Etienne,  France,  has 
abolished  the  common  grave  to  which  heretofore  have  been 
consigned  all  bodies  buried  at  the  public  expense.  Why  those 
whose  dearest  wish  is  to  institute  Communism  in  everything 
this  side  the  grave  should  object  to  it  in  the  grave  itself  is  in- 
comprehensible to  an  Anarchist.  One  would  suppose  that,  if 
Communism  must  be  accepted  at  all,  it  would  be  found  less 
intolerable  than  anywhere  else  in  the  common  du  st  of  earth, 
to  which  we  all  return.  But  it  seems  to  be  the  aim  of  the 
Communists  and  State  Socialists  to  destroy  all  individuality 
that  exists  and  make  a  pretence  of  it  after  it  has  gone, — to 
murder  men  and  worship  their  ghosts. — Liberty,  July  7,  1888. 

Kropotkine,  arguing  in  favor  of  Communism,  says  that  he 
has  "  always  observed  that  workers  with  difficulty  understand 
the  possibility  of  a  wage-system  of  labor-checks  and  like  arti- 
ficial inventions  of  Socialists,"  but  has  been  "  struck  on  the 
contrary  by  the  easiness  with  which  they  always  accept  Com- 
munist principles."  Was  Kropotkine  ever  struck  by  the  easi- 
ness with  which  simple-minded  people  accept  the  creation 
theory  and  the  difficulty  with  which  they  understand  the  pos- 
sibility of  evolution  ?  If  so,  did  he  ever  use  this  fact  as  an 
argument  in  favor  of  the  creation  hypothesis  ?  Just  as  it  is 
easier  to  rest  satisfied  with  the  statement,  "  Male  and  female 
created  he  them,"  than  to  trace  in  the  geological  strata  the 
intricacies  in  the  evolution  of  species,  so  it  is  easier  to  say  that 
every  man  shall  have  whatever  he  wants  than  to  find  the 
economic  law  by  which  every  man  may  get  the  equivalent  of 
his  product.  The  ways  of  Faith  are  direct  and  easy  to  follow, 
but  their  goal  is  a  quagmire  ;  whereas  the  ways  of  Science, 
however  devious  and  difficult  to  tread,  lead  to  solid  ground  at 
last.  Communism  belongs  to  the  Age  of  Faith,  Anarchistic 
Socialism  to  the  Age  of  Science. — Liberty,  September  15,  1888. 


4©9 


METHODS. 


THE  POWER  OF  PASSIVE  RESISTANCE. 

[Liberty,  October  4,  1884.] 

"  Edgeworth  "  makes  appeal  to  me  through  Lucifer  to  know 
how  I  propose  to  "  starve  out  Uncle  Sam."  Light  on  this 
subject  he  would  "rather  have  than  roast  beef  and  plum  pud- 
ding for  dinner  in  sceculd  sczculorum."  It  puzzles  him  to  know 
whether  by  the  clause  "  resistance  to  taxation  "  on  the  "  sphynx 
head  of  Liberty  on  *  God  and  the  State '  "  I  mean  that  "  true 
Anarchists  should  advertise  their  principles  by  allowing  prop- 
erty to  be  seized  by  the  sheriff  and  sold  at  auction,  in  order  by 
such  personal  sacrifices  to  become  known  to  each  other  as  men 
and  women  of  a  common  faith,  true  to  that  faith  in  the  teeth 
of  their  interests  and  trustworthy  for  combined  action."  If  I 
do  mean  th;s,  he  ventures  to  "  doubt  the  policy  of  a  test  which 
depletes,  not  that  enormous  vampire,  Uncle  Sam,  but  our  own 
little  purses,  so  needful  for  our  propaganda  of  ideas,  several 
times  a  year,  distrainment  by  the  sheriff  being  in  many  parts 
of  the  country  practically  equivalent  to  tenfold  taxes."  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  I  have  in  view  a  minority  capable  of  "  success- 
fully withdrawing  the  supplies  from  Uncle  Sam's  treasury,"  he 
would  like  to  inquire  "  how  any  minority,  however  respectable 
in  numbers  and  intelligence,  is  to  withstand  the  sheriff  backed 
by  the  army,  and  to  withhold  tribute  to  the  State." 

Fair  and  pertinent  questions  these,  which  I  take  pleasure  in 
answering.  In  the  first  place,  then,  the  policy  to  be  pursued 
by  individual  and  isolated  Anarchists  is  dependent  upon  cir- 
cumstances. I,  no  more  than  "Edgeworth,"  believe  in  any  fool- 
ish waste  of  needed  material.  It  is  not  wise  warfare  to  throw 
your  ammunition  to  the  enemy  unless  you  throw  it  from  the 
cannon's  mouth.  But  if  you  can  compel  the  enemy  to  waste 
his  ammunition  by  drawing  his  fire  on  some  thoroughly  pro- 
tected spot  ;  if  you  can,  by  annoying  and  goading  and  harass- 
ing him  in  all  possible  ways,  drive  him  to  the  last  resort  of 
stripping  bare  his  tyrannous  and  invasive  purposes  and  put 
him  in  the  attitude  of  a  designing  villain  assailing  honest  men 
for  purposes  of  plunder,— there  is  no  better  strategy.  Let  no 
Anarchist,  then,  place  his  property  within  reach  of  the  sheriff's 

411 


412 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


clutch.  But  some  year,  when  he  feels  exceptionally  strong 
and  independent,  when  his  conduct  can  impair  no  serious 
personal  obligations,  when  on  the  whole  he  would  a  little 
rather  go  to  jail  than  not,  and  when  his  property  is  in  such 
shape  that  he  can  successfully  conceal  it,  let  him  declare  to 
the  assessor  property  of  a  certain  value,  and  then  defy  the  col- 
lector to  collect.  Or,  if  he  have  no  property,  let  him  decline 
to  pay  his  poll  tax.  The  State  will  then  be  put  to  its  trumps. 
Of  two  things  one, — either  it  will  let  him  alone,  and  then  he 
will  tell  his  neighbors  all  about  it,  resulting  the  next  year  in  an 
alarming  disposition  on  their  part  to  keep  their  own  money  in 
their  own  pockets  ;  or  else  it  will  imprison  him,  and  then  by  the 
requisite  legal  processes  he  will  demand  and  secure  all  the 
rights  of  a  civil  prisoner  and  live  thus  a  decently  comfortable 
life  until  the  State  shall  get  tired  of  supporting  him  and  the 
increasing  number  of  persons  who  will  follow  his  example.  Un- 
less, indeed,  the  State,  in  desperation,  shall  see  fit  to  make  its 
laws  regarding  imprisonment  for  taxes  more  rigorous,  and  then, 
if  our  Anarchist  be  a  determined  man,  we  shall  find  out  how  far 
a  republican  government,  "  deriving  its  just  powers  from  the 
consent  of  the  governed,"  is  ready  to  go  to  procure  that 
"  consent," — whether  it  will  stop  at  solitary  confinement  in  a 
dark  cell  or  join  with  the  Czar  of  Russia  in  administering  tor- 
ture by  electricity.  The  farther  it  shall  go  the  better  it  will 
be  for  Anarchy,  as  every  student  of  the  history  of  reform  well 
knows.  Who  can  estimate  the  power  for  propagandism  of  a 
few  cases  of  this  kind,  backed  by  a  well-organized  force  of 
agitators  without  the  prison  walls  ?  So  much,  then,  for  indi- 
vidual resistance. 

But,  if  individuals  can  do  so  much,  what  shall  be  said  of  the 
enormous  and  utterly  irresistible  power  of  a  large  and  intelli- 
gent minority,  comprising  say  one-fifth  of  the  population  in 
any  given  locality  ?  I  conceive  that  on  this  point  I  need  do 
no  more  than  call  "  Edgeworth's  "  attention  to  the  wonder- 
fully instructive  history  of  the  Land  League  movement  in 
Ireland,  the  most  potent  and  instantly  effective  revolutionary 
force  the  world  has  ever  known  so  long  as  it  stood  by  its 
original  policy  of  "  Pay  No  Rent,"  and  which  lost  nearly  all 
its  strength  the  day  it  abandoned  that  policy.  "  Oh,  but  it 
did  abandon  it  ?  "  "  Edgeworth  "  will  exclaim.  Yes,  but  why  ? 
Because  there  the  peasantry,  instead  of  being  an  intelligent 
minority  following  the  lead  of  principles,  were  an  ignorant, 
though  enthusiastic  and  earnest,  body  of  men  following  blindly 
the  lead  of  unscrupulous  politicians  like  Parnell,  who  really 
wanted  anything  but  the  abolition  of  rent,  but  were  willing  to 


METHODS. 


413 


temporarily  exploit  any  sentiment  or  policy  that  would  float 
them  into  power  and  influence.  But  it  was  pursued  far 
enough  to  show  that  the  British  government  was  utterly 
powerless  before  it  ;  and  it  is  scarcely  too  much  to  say,  in 
my  opinion,  that,  had  it  been  persisted  in,  there  would  not 
to-day  be  a  landlord  in  Ireland.  It  is  easier  to  resist  taxes  in 
this  country  than  it  is  to  resist  rent  in  Ireland  ;  and  such  a 
policy  would  be  as  much  more  potent  here  than  there  as  the 
intelligence  of  the  people  is  greater,  providing  always  that  you 
can  enlist  in  it  a  sufficient  number  of  earnest  and  determined 
men  and  women.  If  one-fifth  of  the  people  were  to  resist  tax- 
ation, it  would  cost  more  to  collect  their  taxes,  or  try  to  col- 
lect them,  than  the  other  four-fifths  would  consent  to  pay  into 
the  treasury.  The  force  needed  for  this  bloodless  fight  Liberty 
is  slowly  but  surely  recruiting,  and  sooner  or  later  it  will  or- 
ganize for  action.  Then,  Tyranny  and  Monopoly,  down  goes 
your  house  ! 

"  Passive  resistance,"  said  Ferdinand  Lassalle,  with  an  ob- 
tuseness  thoroughly  German,  "  is  the  resistance  which  does 
not  resist."  Never  was  there  a  greater  mistake.  It  is  the  only 
resistance  which  in  these  days  of  military  discipline  resists 
with  any  result.  There  is  not  a  tyrant  in  the  civilized  world  to- 
day who  would  not  do  anything  in  his  power  to  precipitate  a 
bloody  revolution  rather  than  see  himself  confronted  by  any 
large  fraction  of  his  subjects  determined  not  to  obey.  An 
insurrection  is  easily  quelled  ;  but  no  army  is  willing  or  able 
to  train  its  guns  on  inoffensive  people  who  do  not  even  gather 
in  the  streets  but  stay  at  home  and  stand  back  on  their  rights. 
Neither  the  ballot  nor  the  bayonet  is  to  play  any  great  part  in 
the  coming  struggle  ;  passive  resistance  and,  in  emergencies, 
the  dynamite  bomb  in  the  hands  of  isolated  individuals  are 
the  instruments  by  which  the  revolutionary  force  is  destined 
to  secure  in  the  last  great  conflict  the  people's  rights  for- 
ever.* 


*  By  "emergencies"  something  very  serious  is  meant, — such,  for 
instance,  as  the  absolute  suppression  of  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the 
press. 


4M 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK, 


THE  IRISH  SITUATION  IN  1881. 

[Liberty,  October  29,  1881.] 

Ireland's  chief  danger:  the  liability  of  her  people  —  be- 
sotted with  superstition;  trampled  on  by  tyranny;  ground  into 
the  dust  beneath  the  weight  of  two  despotisms,  one  religious, 
the  other  political;  victims,  on  the  one  hand,  of  as  cruel  a 
Church  and,  on  the  other,  of  as  heartless  a  State  as  have  ever 
blackened  with  ignorance  or  reddened  with  blood  the  records 
of  civilized  nations — to  forget  the  wise  advice  of  their  cooler 
leaders,  give  full  vent  to  the  passions  which  their  oppressors 
are  aiming  to  foment,  and  rush  headlong  and  blindly  into  riot- 
ous and  ruinous  revolution. 

Ireland's  true  order:  the  wonderful  Land  League,  the  nearest 
approach,  on  a  large  scale,  to  perfect  Anarchistic  organization 
that  the  world  has  yet  seen.  An  immense  number  of  local 
groups,  scattered  over  large  sections  of  two  continents  sepa- 
rated by  three  thousand  miles  of  ocean  ;  each  group  autono- 
mous, each  free;  each  composed  of  varying  numbers  of  indi- 
viduals of  all  ages,  sexes,  races,  equally  autonomous  and  free; 
each  inspired  by  a  common,  central  purpose;  each  supported 
entirely  by  voluntary  contributions;  each  obeying  its  own 
judgment;  each  guided  in  the  formation  of  its  judgment  and 
the  choice  of  its  conduct  by  the  advice  of  a  central  council 
of  picked  men,  having  no  power  to  enforce  its  orders  except 
that  inherent  in  the  convincing  logic  of  the  reasons  on  which 
the  orders  are  based;  all  coordinated  and  federated,  with  a 
minimum  of  machinery  and  without  sacrifice  of  spontaneity, 
into  a  vast  working  unit,  whose  unparalleled  power  makes 
tyrants  tremble  and  armies  of  no  avail. 

Ireland's  shortest  road  to  success:  no  payment  of  rent  now 
or  hereafter;  no  payment  of  compulsory  taxes  now  or  here- 
after; utter  disregard  of  the  British  parliament  and  its  so- 
called  laws;  entire  abstention  from  the  polls  henceforth;  rig- 
orous but  non-invasive  "  boycotting  "  of  deserters,  cowards, 
traitors,  and  oppressors;  vigorous,  intelligent,  fearless  prose- 
cution of  the  land  agitation  by  voice  and  pen;  passive  but 
stubborn  resistance  to  every  offensive  act  of  police  or  mili- 
tary; and,  above  all,  universal  readiness  to  go  to  prison,  and 
promptness  in  filling  the  places  made  vacant  by  those  who 
may  be  sent  to  prison.  Open  revolution,  terrorism,  and  the 
policy  above  outlined,  which  is  Liberty,  are  the  three  courses 


METHODS. 


415 


from  which  Ireland  now  must  choose  one.  Open  revolution 
on  the  battle-field  means  sure  defeat  and  another  century  of 
misery  and  oppression;  terrorism,  though  preferable  to  revo- 
lution, means  years  of  demoralizing  intrigue,  bloody  plot,  base 
passion,  and  terrible  revenges, — in  short,  all  the  horrors  of  a 
long-continued  national  vendetta,  with  a  doubtful  issue  at  the 
end;  Liberty  means  certain,  unhalting,  and  comparatively 
bloodless  victory,  the  dawn  of  the  sun  of  justice,  and  perpet- 
ual peace  and  prosperity  for  a  hitherto  blighted  land. 


THE  METHOD  OF  ANARCHY. 

[Liberty,  June  18,  1887  ] 

To  the  editor  of  the  San  Francisco  People  Anarchism  is 
evidently  a  new  and  puzzling  doctrine.  It  having  been  pro- 
pounded by  an  Anarchist  from  a  public  platform  in  that  city 
that  Anarchism  must  come  about  by  peaceful  methods  and 
that  physical  force  is  never  justifiable  except  in  self-defence, 
the  People  declares  that,  except  physical  force,  it  can  see 
but  two  methods  of  settling  the  labor  question:  one  the  vol- 
untary surrender  of  privileges  by  the  privileged  class,  which 
it  thinks  ridiculous,  and  the  other  the  ballot,  which  it  rightly 
describes  as  another  form  of  force.  Therefore  the  People, 
supposing  itself  forced  to  choose  between  persuasion,  the 
ballot,  and  direct  physical  force,  selects  the  last.  If  I  were 
forced  to  the  alternative  of  leaving  a  question  unsettled  or 
attempting  one  of  three  ineffectual  means  of  settling  it,  I  think 
I  should  leave  it  unsettled.  It  would  seem  the  wiser  course 
to  accept  the  situation.  But  the  situation  is  not  so  hopeless. 
There  is  a  fourth  method  of  settling  the  difficulty,  of  which 
the  People  seems  never  to  have  heard, — the  method  of 
passive  resistance,  the  most  potent  weapon  ever  wielded  by 
man  against  oppression.  Power  feeds  on  its  spoils,  and  dies 
when  its  victims  refuse  to  be  despoiled.  They  can't  persuade 
it  to  death;  they  can't  vote  it  to  death;  they  can't  shoot  it  to 
death;  but  they  can  always  starve  it  to  death.  When  a  deter- 
mined body  of  people,  sufficiently  strong  in  numbers  and  force 
of  character  to  command  respect  and  make  it  unsafe  to  im- 
prison them,  shall  agree  to  quietly  close  their  doors  in  the 
faces  of  the  tax-collector  and  the  rent-collector,  and  shall,  by 
issuing  their  own  money  in  defiance  of  legal  prohibition,  at 
the  same  time  cease  paying  tribute  to  the  money-lord,  govern- 


416 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK; 


ment,  with  all  the  privileges  which  it  grants  and  the  mo- 
nopolies which  it  sustains,  will  go  by  the  board.  Does  the 
People  think  this  impracticable  ?  I  call  its  attention,  then, 
to  the  vast  work  that  was  done  six  years  ago  in  Ireland  by  the 
old  Irish  Land  League,  in  defiance  of  perhaps  the  most  power- 
ful government  on  earth,  simply  by  shutting  the  door  in  the 
face  of  the  rent-collector  alone.  Within  a  few  short  months 
from  the  inauguration  of  the  "  No-Rent "  policy  landlordry 
found  itself  upon  the  verge  of  dissolution.  It  was  at  its  wits' 
end.  Confronted  by  this  intangible  power,  it  knew  not  what 
to  do.  It  wanted  nothing  so  much  as  to  madden  the  stubborn 
peasantry  into  becoming  an  actively  belligerent  mob  which 
could  be  mowed  down  with  Gatling  guns.  But,  barring  a 
paltry  outbreak  here  and  there,  it  was  impossible  to  goad  the 
farmers  out  of  their  quiescence,  and  the  grip  of  the  landlords 
grew  weaker  every  day. 

"Ah!  but  the  movement  failed,"  I  can  hear  the  People 
reply.  Yes,  it  did  fail  ;  and  why  ?  Because  the  peasants  were 
acting,  not  intelligently  in  obedience  to  their  wisdom,  but 
blindly  in  obedience  to  leaders  who  betrayed  them  at  the 
critical  moment.  Thrown  into  jail  by  the  government,  these 
leaders,  to  secure  their  release,  withdrew  the  "  No-Rent  Mani- 
festo," which  they  had  issued  in  the  first  place  not  with  any 
intention  of  freeing  the  peasants  from  the  burden  of  an  "  im- 
moral tax,"  but  simply  to  make  them  the  tools  of  their  polit- 
ical advancement.  Had  the  people  realized  the  power  they 
were  exercising  and  understood  the  economic  situation,  they 
would  not  have  resumed  the  payment  of  rent  at  Parnell's 
bidding,  and  to-day  they  might  have  been  free.  The  Anar- 
chists do  not  propose  to  repeat  their  mistake.  That  is  why 
they  are  devoting  themselves  entirely  to  the  inculcation  of 
principles,  especially  of  economic  principles.  In  steadfastly 
pursuing  this  course  regardless  of  clamor,  they  alone  are  laying 
a  sure  foundation  for  the  success  of  the  revolution,  though  to 
the  People  of  San  Francisco,  and  to  all  people  who  are  in  such 
a  devil  of  a  hurry  that  they  can't  stop  to  think,  they  seem 
to  be  doing  nothing  at  all. 


METHODS.  4*7 


THEORETICAL  METHODS. 

[Liberty,  July  16,  1887.] 

From  the  raw  recruit  in  the  Salvation  Army  up  to  the  Theoretical  An- 
archist, none  are  lacking  in  "  methods  »  whereby  man  may  be  saved  The 
Religious  recruit  who,  perhaps,  has  just  heard  of  Jesus  is  filled  with  sub- 
lime faith  In  his  exuberant  optimism  earth  and  heaven  seem  about  to 
unite,  peace  is  to  reign  everywhere,  and  happiness  fill  every  soul.  But 
one  thing  is  lacking  -faith.  So  he  sets  out,  like  Bunyan's  Christian 
steafast  in  purpose  to  convince  the  world  that  the  vade  mecum  of  temporal 
and  eternal  success  is  but  this  one  thing  :  Think  as  I  do  and  you  will  be 
saved  '  But,  alas  !  men  have  listened  to  the  old  song  for  centuries,  and 
heaven  has  not  descended  nor  earth  ascended  to  supernal  bliss.  Here,  as 
elsewhere,  difference  of  views  is  a  constant  factor  What  Proudhon  calls 
-  the  force  of  events  "  has  led  to  wider  and  wider  differentiation  of  charac- 
ter and  consequently  of  methods.  We  will  leave  the  religionist  to  his  theo- 
retical method,  and  sadly  smile  as  we  pass  by. 

The  statesman-from  the  public  minister  to  the  itinerant  demagogue- 
also  has  a  method,  a  "Morrison's  Pill  "  for  all  social  ills  Having  out- 
grown the  delusion  of  the  Fifth  Monarchy  men,  who  sought  to  intersect 
fhe  parallel  lines  of  religion  and  politics,  keeping  one  eye  on  earth  and 
the  other  wildly  staring  at  the  hollow  vault  that  but  re-echoed  back  their 
oud  appeals,  the  statesman  sees  but  one  method,-the  bal  ot  !  Eureka  ! 
let  workmen  adopt  political  methods  for  economic  ills,  put  We,  Us  &  Co. 
in  office,  and  the  problem  is  solved  !  But  again  the  constant  factor  ap- 
pears •  in  spite  of  harangues,  preaching,  and  able  editors,  men  will  not 
think  alike  Here  and  there  are  those  who  assert  that  this  mingling  ot 
oolitical  and  economic  methods  is  but  a  repetition  of  the  former  folly. 

The  Prohibitionists  see  the  world  redeemed  when  all  men  abjure  rum 
or  are  unable  to  obtain  it.  If  they  perversely  refuse  to  be  virtuous  it  is 
proposed  to  inject  virtue  into  them.  The  Socialists  of  the  orthodox 
strioe  have  been  persistent,  in  season  and  out  of  season,  in  demonstrating 
to  the  world  that,  when  their  "  propaganda  "  has  brought  all  men  to  one 
way  of  thinking,  incompetency  will  be  able  to  select  competency,  or  ca- 
oacitv  to  run  the  social  machine.  The  Co-operator  also  turns  his  little 
''crank  "  and,  in  haste  to  realize  results,  gathers  himself  together  and 
starts  a'  society  in  the  South  or  West,  where  he  proposes  to  socialize 
««  Millerism  "  within  the  State.  But,  again,  to  all  these  schemes  the  con- 
stant factor  remains  that  the  Apostle  is  only  an  apostle  to  the  few. 

And  last,  though  not  least,  appears  the  Theoretical  Anarchist,,  who, 
while  abjuring  "  systems,"  still  as  vociferously  asserts  the :  validity  of  his 
unpatented  ''method,"  whereby  the  Millennium  is  to  be  inaugurated. 
True  it  has  failed  hitherto,— in  Ireland,  for  instance  ;  but  there  the 
"  method  "  not  "  system,"  when  it  came  to  the  test,  found  that  existing 
political  methods  had  far  greater  attractions.  Strange  !  but  "  twas  ever 
thus  "  and  so  it  will  be  again  while  the  State  remains  Let  us  listen  and 
see  if  we  do  not  catch  the  old,  time-worn  cadence,  so  long  familiar  to  our 

^ Had  the  people  realized  the  power  they  were  exercising,  and  under- 
stood the  economic  situation,  they  would  not  have  resumed  the  payment 
of  rent  at  Parnell's  bidding,  and  to-day  they  might  have  been  free. 


418 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


Salvation  Army  hymn  again  !  "  The  force  of  events  "  within  the  State 
will  ever  lead  the  attraction  of  State  methods  to  predominate.  The  State 
must  go  !  How  ?  I  neither  know  nor  care  ;  I  have  no  patented  or  un- 
patented "method  "  to  foist  upon  a  long-suffering  community.  Let  the 
inevitable  come  as  it  will  ;  I  can  protest  then  as  now.  If  the  "brutal 
Communists  "  of  Chicago,  as  Liberty  called  them,  had  been  more  theo- 
retical in  their  methods,  they  would  not  now  be  lying  under  the  shadow 
of  the  gallows  for  "  conspiracy"  to  resist  invasion  of  individual  rights. 

In  fact,  to  realize  "the  method  of  Anarchy,"  I  am  forcibly  reminded 
of  an  incident  which  occurred  when  I  risked  my  life  to  spread  cheap  labor 
over  the  South.  A  young  lieutenant  was  sent  out  with  a  platoon  to 
make  a  reconnaissance,  and  on  his  march  came  to  a  river  which  was  not 
fordable.  Drilled  in  army  methods,  he  followed  his  instructions  to  make 
a  requisition  on  the  quartermaster  if  he  needed  anything.  "Realizing 
the  power  he  was  exercising  and  understanding  the  military  situation," 
he  sent  in  a  requisition  for  a  platoon  of  men  eighteen  feet  high  !  If  he 
had  waited  till  the  water  had  run  by,  he  might  have  crossed  easily,  but 
then,  as  now,  nature  and  men  remained  constant  factors. 

Sadly,  Dyer  D.  Lum. 

It  is  no  wonder  that  Mr.  Lum  feels  sad.  I  should  feel  not 
only  sad,  but  ashamed,  if  the  responsibility  of  the  above  article 
rested  on  my  shoulders.  It  is  such  a  bundle  of  absurdities, 
such  a  labyrinth  of  analogies  that  cross  each  other  at  every 
turn,  such  an  unmethodical  mass  of  errors,  that  it  is  impossible 
to  pursue  any  method  in  answering  it.  There  is  so  little 
about  it  that  is  structural  or  organic  that  it  must  be  dealt  with 
more  or  less  at  random.  Perhaps  I  shall  strike  in  a  not  alto- 
gether wrong  direction  if  I  point  out  to  Mr.  Lum  that  the 
State  which  he  is  trying  to  abolish  is  not  the  State  as  institu- 
tion, but  simply  the  existing  State.  He  is  like  the  slave  who 
is  so  utterly  destitute  of  an  idea,  so  thoroughly  incapable  of  a 
generalization,  in  short,  so  entirely  and  exclusively  practical, 
that  he  cannot  appreciate  the  remoter  fact  that  his  oppression 
rests  upon  an  almost  universal  belief  in  mastership,  but  can 
see  no  further  than  the  concrete  master  whose  lash  he  feels. 
If  one  of  his  fellows  were  to  reason  from  the  latter  back  to  the 
former  and  seek  some  method  of  striking  at  the  foundation  of 
the  tyranny,  this  slave  would  sneer  at  him,  as  Mr.  Lum  sneers 
at  the  "  Theoretical  Anarchist  "  ;  but  to  one  of  his  fellows  who 
should  snatch  the  lash  from  the  master's  hand  and  beat  him 
to  death,  though  with  no  other  thought  than  of  straightway 
kneeling  to  another  master,  this  slave  would  lift  his  hat,  as 
Mr.  Lum  "lifted  his  hat  to  the  thrower  of  the  Chicago  bomb." 
I  care  as  little  as  Mr.  Lum  how  the  State  goes,  but  I  insist 
that  it  shall  really  go, — that  it  shall  be  abolished,  not  reformed. 
That  it  cannot  be  abolished  until  there  shall  exist  some  con- 
siderable measure  and  solid  weight  of  absolute  and  well- 
grounded  disbelief  in  it  as  an  institution  is  a  truth  too  nearly 


METHODS. 


axiomatic  for  demonstration.  In  the  absence  of  such  disbe- 
lief the  existing  State  might  be  destroyed  by  the  blindly  rebel- 
lious or  might  fall  through  its  own  rottenness,  but  another 
would  at  once  arise  in  its  stead.  Why  should  it  not,  how 
could  it  be  otherwise,  when  all  believe  in  the  necessity  of  the 
State  ?  Now,  it  is  to  create  this  measure  and  weight  of  disbe- 
lief that  the  "  Theoretical  Anarchist  "  is  working.  He  is  not 
trying,  like  the  religionist,  to  convert  the  whole  world  to  his 
way  of  thinking  by  a  never-ending  series  of  individual  conver- 
sions, or,  like  the  politician,  Prohibitionist,  and  Socialist,  to 
get  a  majority  upon  his  side,  or  yet,  like  the  Co-operator  (whom 
I  am  surprised  to  see  cited  as  "  theoretical  "),  to  retire  from 
the  busy  world  to  build  a  play-house  in  the  wilderness  ;  he  is 
simply  addressing  himself  to  such  persons  as  are  amenable  to 
reason  to  the  end  that  these  may  unite  and  here  and  now  enter 
upon  the  work  of  laying 'the  foundations  of  Liberty,  knowing 
that,  these  foundations  once  laid,  the  structure  must  rise  upon 
them,  the  work  of  all  men's  hands,  as  a  matter  of  economic 
necessity.  This  is  a  work  that  must  be  done  sooner  or  later, 
and  the  sooner  the  better.  If,  as  Mr.  Lum  conceives,  the 
destruction  of  the  existing  State  by  force  is  inevitable,  no  fact 
more  than  this  should  incite  the  "Theoretical  Anarchist"  to 
immediately  concentrate  all  his  energies  upon  the  work  which 
he  has  laid  out.  If  ruin  is  to  confront  us  so  soon  and  surely, 
all  the  greater  need  of  seeing  to  it  that  Liberty,  and  not  Au- 
thority, shall  be  the  architect  of  the  succeeding  social  struc- 
ture. If  Mr.  Lum  and  his  friends,  the  Communists  of  Chicago 
(whose  characterization  as  "brutal"  Mr.  Lum  in  the  past, 
when  less  anxious  to  score  a  point  against  me,  has  carefully 
and  correctly  attributed  to  "  X  "  instead  of  to  Liberty),  had 
devoted  one  half  the  energy  to  this  "theoretical"  work  that 
they  have  expended  in  preaching  the  gospel  of  dynamite  and 
proclaiming  "  the  logic  of  events,"  not  only  would  none  of 
them  "now  be  lying  under  the  shadow  of  the  gallows"  (the 
desirability  of  which  position  I  do  not  perceive  as  clearly  as 
Mr.  Lum),  but  very  likely  there  would  now  be  enough  "Theo- 
retical Anarchists  "  to  begin  some  work  similar  to  that  which 
C.  T.  Fowler  is  outlining  in  his  luminous  Sun.  If  Mr.  Lum 
can  demonstrate  the  impossibility  of  creating  such  a  force  as 
this,  he  will  not  only  knock  the  bottom  out  of  "  Theoretical  An- 
archism," but  he  will  reduce  every  species  of  Socialism  to  a 
Utopian  dream.  But  until  he  can,  it  will  be  futile  for  him  to 
fight  "  Theoretical  Anarchism  "  with  analogies  based  on  such 
impossibilities  as  the  recruiting  of  men  eighteen  feet  high. 
The  two  methods  must  be  proved  equally  impossible  before 


420 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK 


the  analogy  will  hold.  I  have  not  touched  all  the  weak  points, 
but  perhaps  I  have  said  enough.  At  any  rate,  as  Proudhon 
has  been  referred  to,  I  cannot  close  more  aptly  than  with 
these  words  from  his  "  What  is  Property?"  "  There  is  one 
truth  of  which  I  am  profoundly  convinced, — nations  live  by 
absolute  ideas,  not  by  approximate  and  partial  conceptions  ; 
therefore,  men  are  needed  who  define  principles,  or  at  least 
test  them  in  the  fire  of  controversy.  Such  is  the  law, — the 
idea  first,  the  pure  idea,  the  understanding  of  the  laws  of  God, 
the  theory  :  practice  follows  with  slow  steps,  cautious,  atten- 
tive to  the  succession  of  events  ;  sure  to  seize,  towards  this 
eternal  meridian,  the  indications  of  supreme  reason.  The 
co-operation  of  theory  and  practice  produces  in  humanity  the 
realization  of  order, — the  absolute  truth.  All  of  us,  as  long  as 
we  live,  are  called,  each  in  proportion  to  his  strength,  to  this 
sublime  work.  The  only  duty  which  it  imposes  upon  us  is  to 
refrain  from  appropriating  the  truth  to  ourselves,  either  by 
concealing  it,  or  by  accommodating  it  to  the  temper  of  the  century, 
or  by  using  it  for  our  own  interests." 


A  SEED  PLANTED. 

[Liberty,  May  26,  1888.] 

Time:  Thursday,  May  17,  7.30  p.m. 

Place  :  Residence  of  the  editor  of  Liberty,  10  Garfield  Ave., 
Crescent  Beach,  Revere  (a  town  in  the  suburbs  of  Boston). 

Dramatis  Persona :  Charles  F.  Fenno,  so-called  tax-collec- 
tor of  Revere,  and  the  editor  of  Liberty.  „ 

In  answer  to  a  knock  the  editor  of  Liberty  opens  his  front 
door,  and  is  accosted  by  a  man  whom  he  never  met  before, 
but  who  proves  to  be  Fenno. 

Fenno. — "  Does  Mr.  Tucker  live  here  ?  " 

Editor  of  Liberty. — "  That's  my  name,  sir." 

F. — "  I  came  about  a  poll-tax." 

E.  of  L.—"  Well?" 

F.  — "Well,  I  came  to  collect  it." 

E.  of  L. — "  Do  I  owe  you  anything  ? " 

F.  — "  Why,  yes." 

E.  of  L. — "  Did  I  ever  agree  to  pay  you  anything?  " 

F.  — "  Well,  no  ;  but  you  were  living  here  on  the  first  of  May 
last  year,  and  the  town  taxed  you  one  dollar." 

E.  of  L. — "  Oh  !  it  isn't  a  matter  of  agreement,  then  ?" 


METHODS. 


421 


F. — "  No,  it's  a  matter  of  compulsion." 

E.  of  L. — "  But  isn't  that  rather  a  mild  word  for  it  ?  I  call 
it  robbery." 

F.  — "Oh,  well,  you  know  the  law  ;  it  says  that  all  persons 
twenty  years  of  age  and  upwards  who  are  living  in  a  town  on 
the  first  day  of  May — " 

E.  of  L. — "  Yes,  I  know  what  the  law  says,  but  the  law  is 
the  greatest  of  all  robbers." 

F.  — "  That  may  be.    Anyhow,  I  want  the  money." 

E.  of  L.  (taking  a  dollar  from  his  pocket  and  handing-  it 
to  Fenno) — "  Very  well.  I  know  you  are  stronger  than  I  am, 
because  you  have  a  lot  of  other  robbers  at  your  back,  and  that 
you  will  be  able  to  take  this  dollar  from  me  if  I  refuse  to  hand 
it  to  you.  If  I  did  not  know  that  you  are  stronger  than  I  am, 
I  should  throw  you  down  the  steps.  But  because  I  know  that 
you  are  stronger,  I  hand  you  the  dollar  just  as  I  would  hand 
it  to  any  other  highwayman.  You  have  no  more  right  to  take 
it,  however,  than  to  enter  the  house  and  take  everything  else 
you  can  lay  your  hands  on,  and  I  don't  see  why  you  don't 
do  so." 

F\ — "  Have  you  your  tax-bill  with  you  ?  " 

E.  of  L. — "I  never  take  a  receipt  for  money  that  is  stolen 
from  me." 

F.  —u  Oh,  that's  it  ?  " 

E.  of  L— "  Yes,  that's  it." 

And  the  door  closed  in  Fenno's  face. 

He  seemed  a  harmless  and  inoffensive  individual,  entirely 
ignorant  of  the  outrageous  nature  of  his  conduct,  and  he  is 
wondering  yet,  I  presume,  if  not  consulting  with  his  fellow- 
citizens,  upon  what  manner  of  crank  it  is  that  lives  at  No.  10 
Garfield  Ave.,  and  whether  it  would  not  be  the  part  of  wisdom 
to  lodge  him  straightway  in  a  lunatic  asylum. 


THE  "HOME  GUARD"  HEARD  FROM. 

[Liberty,  June  23,  1888.] 

The  last  issue  of  the  Workmen  s  Advocate  contains  the  fol- 
lowing communication  : 

To  the  Workmen's  Advocate: 

Oh  !  what  a  feeling  of  rapture  came  over  me  as  I  began  reading  the  dia- 
logue between  Tucker  and  Fenno  in  the  last  number  of  Liberty.  (Ego 


42  2 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


Tucker  needs  no  introduction;  Fenno  is  the  fiend  who  came  to  collect  the 
poll-tax.)  My  thoughts  went  back  to  another  age  and  to  distant  clime.  I 
thought  of  John  Hampden  refusing  to  pay  the  ship-tax.  I  had  often  asked 
myself,  who  will  be  the  leader  in  this,  the  struggle  of  the  fourth  estate? 
Where  is  the  man  who  will  dare  resist  oppression  ?  I  thought  I  was 
answered.  Here  !  here  was  the  man  who  would  risk  all  for  Liberty  !  And 
althotigh  she  slew  him,  still  would  he  trust  in  her  / 

But  softly;  as  I  read  further,  he  takes  the  big  iron  dollar  from  his 
pocket  and  gives  it  to  the  minion. 

Oh,  ignominy  !  Instead  of  refusing  to  pay,  he  indulges  in  a  little  bil- 
lingsgate,— a  favorite  pastime  with  him.  He  pays,  and  all  is  over.  Our 
idol  is  but  clay,  and  we  must  seek  another  leader.  Is  this  what  Ego  Anar- 
chists call  "  passive  resistance  "  ?    If  it  is,  it  is  certainly  passive. 

H.  J.  French. 

Denver,  June  5. 

When  I  published  the  poll-tax  interview,  I  foresaw  that  it 
would  call  out  some  such  rubbish  as  the  above  from  my 
Socialistic  critics.  The  fact  that  timely  retreat  often  saves 
from  defeat  seldom  saves  the  retreating  soldier  from  the 
abuse  of  the  "  home  guard."  The  "  stay-at-homes  "  are  great 
worshippers  of  glory,  but  are  always  willing  to  let  others  win 
it.  To  the  man  of  peace  the  man  who  runs  is  never  a  hero, 
although  the  true  soldier  may  know  him  for  the  bravest  of  the 
brave.  After  reading  such  a  criticism  as  Mr.  French's,  well 
may  one  exclaim  with  Wilfrid  Scawen  Blunt  :  "  What  men 
call  courage  is  the  least  noble  thing  of  which  they  boast."  To 
my  mind  there  is  no  such  depth  of  poltroonery  as  that  of  the 
man  who  does  not  dare  to  run.  For  he  has  not  the  real  cour- 
age to  obey  his  own  judgment  against  that  "  spook,"  public 
opinion,  above  which  his  mind  is  not  sufficiently  emancipated 
to  rise  in  scorn.  Placed  in  a  situation  where,  from  the  choice 
of  one  or  the  other  horn  of  a  dilemma,  it  must  follow  either 
that  fools  will  think  a  man  a  coward  or  that  wise  men  will 
think  him  a  fool,  I  can  conceive  of  no  possible  ground  for 
hesitancy  in  the  selection.  I  know  my  circumstances  better 
than  Mr.  French  can  know  them,  and  I  do  not  permit  him  to 
be  my  judge.  When  I  want  glory,  I  know  how  to  get  it.  But 
I  am  not  working  for  glory.  Like  the  base-ball  player  who 
sacrifices  his  individual  record  to  the  success  of  his  club,  I  am 
"  playing  for  my  team", — that  is,  I  am  working  for  my  cause. 
And  I  know  that,  on  the  whole,  it  was  better  for  my  cause 
that  I  should  pay  my  tax  this  year  than  that  I  should  refuse 
to  pay  it.  Is  this  passive  resistance  ?  asks  Mr.  French.  No  ;  it 
is  simply  a  protest  for  the  purpose  of  propagandism.  Passive 
resistants,  no  less  than  active  resistants,  have  the  right  to 
choose  when  to  resist. 

Far  be  it  from  me  to  depreciate  the  services  of  the  Hamp- 


METHODS. 


dens  and  the  martyrs  reverenced  by  mankind.  There  are 
times  when  the  course  that  such  men  follow  is  the  best  policy, 
and  then  their  conduct  is  of  the  noblest.  But  there  are  times 
also  when  it  is  sheer  lunacy,  and  then  their  conduct  is  not  for 
sane  men  to  admire.  Did  Mr.  French  ever  hear  of  the  Charge 
of  the  Light  Brigade  at  Balaklava  ?  And  does  he  remember 
the  comment  of  a  military  man  who  witnessed  that  memo- 
rable, that  splendid,  that  insane  exploit,  fruitful  in  nothing  save 
the  slaughter  of  half  a  thousand  men  :  "  It  is  magnificent, 
but  it  is  not  war."    The  editor  of  Liberty  is  engaged  in  war. 


COLONIZATION. 

{Liberty,  July  26,  1884.] 

An  excellently  written  article  by  E.  C.  Walker  sets  forth 
considerations  in  favor  of  isolated  communities  for  reforma- 
tory purposes  which  are  forcible  and  weighty,  especially  that 
of  preventing,  by  the  avoidance  of  social  ostracism,  the  con- 
stant and  serious  drain  upon  the  radical  forces.  Nevertheless, 
Reclus  is  right,  all  things  considered.  It  is  just  because  Mr. 
Walker's  earnest  desire  for  a  fair  practical  test  of  Anarchistic 
principles  cannot  be  fulfilled  elsewhere  than  in  the  very  heart 
of  existing  industrial  and  social  life  that  all  these  community 
attempts  are  unwise.  Reform  communities  will  either  be  re- 
cruited from  the  salt  of  the  earth,  and  then  their  success  will 
not  be  taken  as  conclusive,  because  it  will  be  said  that  their 
principles  are  applicable  only  among  men  and  women  well- 
nigh  perfect  ;  or,  with  these  elect,  will  be  a  large  admixture 
of  semi-lunatics  among  whom,  when  separated  from  the  great 
mass  of  mankind  and  concentrated  by  themselves,  society  will 
be  unendurable,  practical  work  impossible,  and  Anarchy  as 
chaotic  as  it  is  generally  supposed  to  be.  But  in  some  large 
city  fairly  representative  of  the  varied  interests  and  character- 
istics of  our  heterogeneous  civilization  let  a  sufficiently  large 
number  of  earnest  and  intelligent  Anarchists,  engaged  in 
nearly  all  the  different  trades  and  professions,  combine  to  carry 
on  their  production  and  distribution  on  the  cost  principle  and 
to  start  a  bank  through  which  they  can  obtain  a  non-interest- 
bearing  currency  for  the  conduct  of  their  commerce  and  dis- 
pose their  steadily  accumulating  capital  in  new  enterprise^, 
the  advantages  of  this  system  of  affairs  being  open  to  all  who 
should  choose  to  offer  their  patronage, — what  would  be  the 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


result  ?  Why,  soon  the  whole  composite  population,  wise  and 
unwise,  good,  bad,  and  indifferent,  would  become  interested 
in  what  was  going  on  under  their  very  eyes,  more  and  more  of 
them  would  actually  take  part  in  it,  and  in  a  few  years,  each 
man  reaping  the  fruit  of  his  labor  and  no  man  able  to  live  in 
idleness  on  an  income  from  capital,  the  whole  city  would  be- 
come a  great  hive  of  Anarchistic  workers,  prosperous  and  free 
individuals.  It  is  such  results  as  this  that  I  look  forward  to, 
and  it  is  for  the  accomplishment  of  such  that  I  work.  Social 
landscape  gardening  can  come  later  if  it  will.  It  has  no  in- 
terest for  me  now.  I  care  nothing  for  any  reform  that  cannot 
be  effected  right  here  in  Boston  among  the  every-day  people 
whom  I  meet  upon  the  streets. 


LABOR'S  NEW  FETICH.  • 

{Liberty,  August  23,  1884.] 

General  Butler's  long-expected  letter  [in  acceptance  of 
the  nomination  for  the  presidency  given  him  by  the  labor 
party]  is  out  at  last.  The  question  now  is  how  many  it  will 
hoodwink.  Among  these  at  least  will  not  be  Liberty.  Would 
that  as  much  could  be  asserted  of  all  who  think  they  believe 
in  Liberty.  But  the  political  habit  is  a  clinging  one  ;  the  fasci- 
nations of  political  warfare  seldom  altogether  lose  their  charm 
over  those  who  have  once  been  under  its  influence  ;  traces  of 
faith  in  its  efficacy  still  linger  in  the  minds  of  those  who  sup- 
pose themselves  emancipated  ;  the  old  majority  superstition 
yet  taints  the  reformer's  blood,  and,  in  face  of  the  evils  that 
threaten  society^s  life,  he  appeals  to  its  saving  grace  with  the 
same  curious  mixture  of  doubt  and  confidence  that  sometimes 
leads  a  wavering  and  timorous  Infidel,  when  brought  face  to 
face  with  the  fancied  terrors  of  death,  to  re-embrace  the  theo- 
logical superstition  from  which  his  good  sense  has  once  re- 
volted and  to  declare  his  belief  on  the  Lord  Jesus,  lest,  as  one 
of  them  is  said  to  have  profanely  put  it,  "  there  may  be,  after 
all,  a  God,  or  a  Christ,  or  a  Hell,  or  some  damned  thing  or 
other."  To  such  as  these,  then,  Butler  will  look  for  some  of 
his  strength,  and  not  be  disappointed. 

The  audacity  of  this  demagogue's  utterances,  the  fearlessness 
with  which  he  exposes  such  shams  and  frauds  and  tyrannies  as 
he  does  not  himself  champion,  the  fury  of  his  onslaught  on 
those  hypocrites  in  high  places  to  dislodge  whom  for  his  own 


METHODS.  425 

benefit  and  glory  he  himself  hypocritically  espouses  the  cause 
of  the  people,  all  tend  to  fire  such  radical  hearts  as  have  no 
radical  heads  to  guide  them,  and  accordingly  we  see  on  every 
hand  reformers  of  every  stripe,  through  their  press  and  on  their 
platforms,  enlisting  in  the  service  of  this  incarnation  of  reac- 
tion, this  personification  of  absolutism,  this  total  stranger  to 
the  principle  of  Liberty,  this  unscrupulous  plunderer  of  labor, 
this  servant  of  the  fearful  trinity  of  the  people's  enemies,  being 
at  once  an  insincere  devotee  of  the  Church,  a  steadfast  lover 
of  a  mammoth  and  omnipotent  State,  and  a  bloated  benefi- 
ciary of  the  exactions  of  Capital. 

The  platform  announced  in  his  letter  is  a  ridiculous  tissue 
of  contradictions,  and  absurdities.  Anti-monopoly  only  in 
name,  it  sanctions  innumerable  monopolies  and  privileges,  and 
avowedly  favors  class  legislation.  As  far  as  it  is  not  nonde- 
script, it  is  the  beginning  of  State  Socialism, — that  is,  a  long 
step  towards  the  realization  of  the  most  gigantic  and  appalling 
monopoly  ever  conceived  by  the  mind  of  man.  One  sentence 
in  it,  however,  commands  my  approbation  :  "  The  laboring 
man  votes  for  his  Fetich,  the  Democratic  party,  and  the  farmer 
votes  for  his  Fetich,  the  Republican  party,  and  the  result  is 
that  both  are  handed  over  as  captives  to  the  corruptionists  and 
monopolists,  whichever  side  wins.  Mark  this  :  the  laborers  a?id 
the  people  never  win  /"  True,  every  word  of  it !  But  why  not 
go  a  little  farther  ?  Suppose  both  laborer  and  farmer  vote  for 
their  new  Fetich,  Ben  Butler  and  his  party  of  State  Socialism, 
what  will  be  the  result  then  ?  Will  not  both  be  handed  over 
as  captives  to  a  band  of  corruptionists  as  much  larger  and 
greedier  as  the  reach  and  resources  of  the  government  are  made 
vaster,  all  in  the  service  and  pay,  not  of  a  number  of  distinct 
and  relatively  weak  monopolies,  but  of  one  consolidated  mo- 
nopoly whose  rapacity  will  know  no  bounds  ?  No  doubt  about 
it  whatever.  Let  those  who  will,  then,  bow  before  this  idol, — 
no  Anarchistic  knee  shall  bend.  We  Anarchists  have  not  come 
for  that.  We  come  to  shatter  Fetiches,  not  to  kneel  before 
them, — no  more  before  Fetich  Butler  than  Fetich  Blaine  or 
Fetich  Cleveland  or  Fetich  St.  John.  We  are  here  to  let  in 
the  light  of  Liberty  upon  political  superstition,  and  from  that 
policy  can  result  no  captivity  to  corruption,  no  subserviency  to 
monopoly,  only  a  world  of  free  laborers  controlling  the  products 
of  their  labor  and  growing  richer  every  day. 

If  Liberty  has  a  weak-kneed  friend  who  is  contemplating  a 
violation  of  his  Anarchistic  principles  by  voting  just  for  once, 
may  these  golden  words  from  John  Morley's  work  on  "  Com- 
promise "  recall  him  to  his  better  self  : 


426 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


A  principle,  if  it  be  sound,  represents  one  of  the  larger  expediencies. 
To  abandon  that  for  the  sake  of  some  seeming  expediency  of  the  hour  is 
to  sacrifice  the  greater  good  for  the  less  on  no  more  creditable  ground 
than  that  the  less  is  nearer.  It  is  better  to  wait,  and  to  defer  the  realiza- 
tion of  our  ideas  until  we  can  realize  them  fully,  than  to  defraud  the 
future  by  truncating  them,  if  truncate  them  we  must,  in  order  to  secure 
a  partial  triumph  for  them  in  the  immediate  present.  It  is  better  to  bear 
the  burden  of  impracticableness  than  to  stifle  conviction  and  to  pare  away 
principle  until  it  becomes  mere  hollowness  and  triviality.  What  is  the 
sense  and  what  is  the  morality  of  postponing  the  wider  utility  to  the  nar- 
rower? Nothing  is  so  sure  to  impoverish  an  epoch,  to  deprive  conduct 
of  nobleness  and  character  of  elevation. 


MR.  PENTECOST'S  BELIEF  IN  THE  BALLOT. 

[Liberty,  January  19,  1889.] 

I  greatly  admire  Hugh  O.  Pentecost.  He  is  a  growing  and 
a  fair-minded  man.  His  Twentieth  Century,  now  published 
weekly  in  an  enlarged  form,  is  doing  a  useful  work.  He  al- 
ready accepts  Anarchy  as  an  ultimate,  and  the  whole  tenor 
of  his  writings  is  leading  him  on,  it  seems  to  me,  to  a  casting-off 
of  his  devotion  to  the  single-tax  movement  and  to  reforms  still 
more  distinctly  State  Socialistic,  and  to  a  direct  advocacy  of 
Anarchistic  principles  and  methods.  It  is  because  I  believe 
this  that  I  feel  like  reasoning  with  him  regarding  a  vital  in- 
consistency in  his  discourse  of  January  13  on  "  Ballots  or 
Bullets?"  in  which,  moreover,  the  tendency  referred  to  is 
marked. 

After  laying  it  down  as  a  principle  that  force  is  never  justi- 
fiable (and,  by  the  way,  I  cannot  accept  so  absolute  a  denial 
of  force  as  this,  though  I  heartily  agree  that  force  is  futile  in 
almost  all  circumstances),  he  goes  on  as  follows  :  "  If  it  is  not 
justifiable  for  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  govern- 
ment, neither  is  it  justifiable  for  the  overthrow  or  modification 
of  government.  .  .  .  The  intellectual  and  moral  process  of  regen- 
eration is  slower  than  force,  but  it  is  right  ;  and  when  the  work 
is  thus  done,  it  has  the  merit  of  having  been  done  properly 
and  thoroughly."  So  far,  excellent.  But  mark  the  next 
sentence  :  "  The  ballot  is  the  people's  agency  even  for  correct- 
ing its  own  evils,  and  it  seems  to  me  a  social  crime  to  refrain 
from  its  use  for  regenerative  purposes  until  it  is  absolutely 
demonstrated  that  it  is  a  failure  as  an  instrument  for  free- 
dom." 

Now,  what  is  the  ballot  ?    It  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  a 


METHODS, 


427 


paper  representative  of  the  bayonet,  the  billy,  and  the  bullet. 
It  is  a  labor-saving  device  for  ascertaining  on  which  side  force 
lies  and  bowing  to  the  inevitable.  The  voice  of  the  majority 
saves  bloodshed,  but  it  is  no  less  the  arbitrament  of  force  than 
is  the  decree  of  the  most  absolute  of  despots  backed  by  the 
most  powerful  of  armies.  Of  course  it  may  be  claimed  that 
the  struggle  to  attain  to  the  majority  involves  an  incidental 
use  of  intellectual  and  moral  processes  ;  but  these  influences 
would  exert  themselves  still  more  powerfully  in  other  chan- 
nels if  there  were  no  such  thing  as  the  ballot,  and,  when  used 
as  subsidiary  to  the  ballot,  they  represent  only  a  striving  for 
the  time  when  physical  force  can  be  substituted  for  them. 
Reason  devoted  to  politics  fights  for  its  own  dethronement. 
The  moment  the  minority  becomes  the  majority,  it  ceases  to 
reason  and  persuade,  and  begins  to  command  and  enforce  and 
punish.  If  this  be  true, — and  I  think  that  Mr.  Pentecost  will 
have  difficulty  in  gainsaying  it, — it  follows  that  to  use  the 
ballot  for  the  modification  of  government  is  to  use  force  for 
the  modification  of  government  ;  which  sequence  makes  it  at 
once  evident  that  Mr.  Pentecost  in  his  conclusion  pronounces 
it  a  social  crime  to  avoid  that  course  which  in  his  premise  he 
declares  unjustifiable. 

It  behooves  Mr.  Pentecost  to  examine  this  charge  of  incon- 
sistency carefully,  for  his  answer  to  it  must  deeply  affect  his 
career.  If  he  finds  that  it  is  well-founded,  the  sincerity  of  his 
nature  will  oblige  him  to  abandon  all  such  political  measures 
as  the  taxation  of  land  values  and  the  government  ownership 
of  banks  and  railroads  and  devote  himself  to  Anarchism, 
which  offers  not  only  the  goal  that  he  seeks,  but  confines  it- 
self to  those  purely  educational  methods  of  reaching  it  with 
which  he  finds  himself  in  sympathy 


A  PRINCIPLE  OF  SOCIAL  THERAPEUTICS. 

[Liberty,  January  22,  1887.] 

The  idea  that  Anarchy  can  be  inaugurated  by  force  is  as 
fallacious  as  the  idea  that  it  can  be  sustained  by  force.  Force 
cannot  preserve  Anarchy  ;  neither  can  it  bring  it.  In  fact,  one 
of  the  inevitable  influences  of  the  use  of  force  is  to  postpone 
Anarchy.  The  only  thing  that  force  can  ever  do  for  us  is  to 
save  us  from  extinction,  to  give  us  a  longer  lease  of  life  in 
which  to  try  to  secure  Anarchy  by  the  only  methods  that  can 


428 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


ever  bring  it.  But  this  advantage  is  always  purchased  at  im- 
mense cost,  and  its  attainment  is  always  attended  by  frightful 
risk.  The  attempt  should  be  made  only  when  the  risk  of  any 
other  course  is  greater.  When  a  physician  sees  that  his  pa- 
tient's strength  is  being  exhausted  so  rapidly  by  the  intensity 
of  his  agony  that  he  will  die  of  exhaustion  before  the  medical 
processes  inaugurated  have  a  chance  to  do  their  curative  work, 
he  administers  an  opiate.  But  a  good  physician  is  always  loth 
to  do  so,  knowing  that  one  of  the  influences  of  the  opiate  is  to 
interfere  with  and  defeat  the  medical  processes  themselves 
He  never  does  it  except  as  a  choice  of  evils.  It  is  the  same 
with  the  use  of  force,  whether  of  the  mob  or  of  the  State, 
upon  diseased  society  ;  and  not  only  those  who  prescribe  its 
indiscriminate  use  as  a  sovereign  remedy  and  a  permanent 
tonic,  but  all  who  ever  propose  it  as  a  cure,  and  even  all  who 
would  lightly  and  unnecessarily  resort  to  it,  not  as  a  cure,  but 
as  an  expedient,  are  social  quacks. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  TERRORISM. 

[Liberty,  May  7,  1887.] 

E.  Belfort  Bax  has  an  article  on  "  Legality  "  in  the  Lon- 
don Co7n?nonweal,  which  for  the  most  part  is  by  no  means 
bad.  He  denies  theobligation  to  respect  legality  as  such,  and 
in  the  light  of  this  denial  discusses  the  policy  of  terrorism  and 
assassination.  Respecting  this  policy,  he  declares,  as  Liberty 
has  frequently  declared  before  him,  that  it  should  be  used 
against  the  oppressors  of  mankind  only  when  they  have  suc- 
ceeded in  hopelessly  repressing  all  peaceful  methods  of  agita- 
tion. If  he  had  stopped  there,  all  would  have  been  well. 
But  not  satisfied  with  characterizing  the  policy  as  inexpedient 
save  under  the  conditions  referred  to,  he  must  needs  go  fur- 
ther and  brand  it  as  immoral.  Then  he  becomes  ridiculously 
weak.  He  is  led  to  the  conclusion  that  in  Russia  terrorism 
is  both  morally  justifiable  and  expedient  ;  that  in  Germany, 
though  morally  justifiable,  it  is  for  various  reasons  inexpedient; 
and  that  in  England  it  is  neither  morally  justifiable  nor  ex- 
pedient. Liberty  agrees  that  terrorism  is  expedient  in  Russia 
and  inexpedient  in  Germany  and  England,  but  it  will  be  many 
years  older  than  now  before  it  assumes  to  set  any  limit  on  the 
right  of  an  invaded  individual  to  choose  his  own  methods  of 
defence. 


METHODS. 


The  invader,  whether  an  individual  or  a  government,  for- 
feits all  claim  to  consideration  from  the  invaded.  This  truth 
is  independent  of  the  character  of  the  invasion.  It  makes  no 
difference  in  what  direction  the  individual  finds  his  freedom 
arbitrarily  limited;  he  has  a  right  to  vindicate  it  in  any  case, 
and  he  will  be  justified  in  vindicating  it  by  whatever  means 
are  available.  The  right  to  take  unoccupied  land  and  culti- 
vate it  is  as  unquestionable  as  the  right -to  speak  one's  thoughts, 
and  resistance  offered  to  any  violation  of  the  former  is  no 
less  self-defence  than  resistance  offered  to  the  violation  of 
the  latter.  In  point  of  morality  one  is  as  good  as  the  other. 
But  with  freedom  of  speech  it  is  possible  to  obtain  freedom 
of  the  land  and  all  the  other  freedoms,  while  without  it  there 
is  no  hope  save  in  terrorism.  Hence  the  expediency — yes, 
the  necessity — of  terrorism  to  obtain  the  one;  hence  the  use- 
lessness  and  folly  of  employing  it  to  obtain  the  other.  So, 
when  Mr.  Bax  says  that  the  Russian  who  shall  kill  the  Czar 
will  act  wisely,  but  that  the  Englishman  who  should  kill 
Salisbury  would  act  foolishly,  he  wins  Liberty's  approval;  but 
when  he  makes  this  Russian  a  saint  and  this  Englishman  a 
knave,  this  approval  must  be  accompanied  by  protest. 


THE  BEAST  OF  COMMUNISM. 

{.Liberty,  March  27,  1886.] 

Henri  Rochefort  is  reported  to  have  said  to  an  interviewer 
the  other  day:  "Anarchists  are  merely  criminals.  They  are 
robbers.  They  want  no  government  whatever,  so  that,  when 
they  meet  you  on  the  street,  they  can  knock  you  down  and 
rob  you."  This  infamous  and  libellous  charge  is  a  very  sweep- 
ing one;  I  only  wish  that  I  could  honestly  meet  it  with  as 
sweeping  a  denial.  And  I  can,  if  I  restrict  the  word  Anar- 
chist as  it  always  has  been  restricted  in  these  columns,  and  as 
it  ought  to  be  restricted  everywhere  and  always.  Confining 
the  word  Anarchist  so  as  to  include  none  but  those  who  deny 
all  external  authority  over  the  individual,  whether  that  of  the 
present  State  or  that  of  some  industrial  collectivity  or  com- 
mune which  the  future  may  produce,  I  can  look  Henri 
Rochefort  in  the  face  and  say:  "You  lie  !  "  .For  of  all  these 
men  I  do  not  recall  even  one  who,  in  any  ordinary  sense  of 
the  term,  can  be  justly  styled  a  robber. 

But  unfortunately,  in  the  minds  of  the  people  at  large,  this 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


word  Anarchist  is  not  yet  thus  restricted  in  meaning.  This  is 
due  principally  to  the  fact  that  within  a  few  years  the  word 
has  been  usurped,  in  the  face  of  all  logic  and  consistency,  by 
a  party  of  Communists  who  believe  in  a  tyranny  worse  than 
any  that  now  exists,  who  deny  to  the  laborer  the  individual 
possession  of  his  product,  and  who  preach  to  their  followers 
the  following  doctrine:  "  Private  property  is  your  enemy;  it  is 
the  beast  that  is  devouring  you;  all  wealth  belongs  to  every- 
body; take  it  wherever  you  can  find  it;  have  no  scruples  about 
the  means  of  taking  it;  use  dynamite,  the  dagger,  or  the  torch 
to  take  it;  kill  innocent  people  to  take  it;  but,  at  all  events, 
take  it."  This  is  the  doctrine  which  they  call  Anarchy,  and 
this  policy  they  dignify  with  the  name  of  "  propagandism  by 
deed." 

Well,  it  has  borne  fruit  with  most  horrible  fecundity.  To 
be  sure,  it  has  gained  a  large  mass  of  adherents,  especially  in 
the  Western  cities,  who  are  well-meaning  men  and  women, 
not  yet  become  base  enough  to  practise  the  theories  which 
they  profess  to  have  adopted.  But  it  has  also  developed,  and 
among  its  immediate  and  foremost  supporters,  a  gang  of  crim- 
inals whose  deeds  for  the  past  two  years  rival  in  "  pure  cussed- 
ness  "  any  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  crime.  Were  it  not, 
therefore,  that  I  have  first,  last,  and  always  repudiated  these 
pseudo-Anarchists  and  their  theories,  I  should  hang  my  head 
m  shame  before  Rochefort's  charge  at  having  to  confess  that 
too  many  of  them  are  not  only  robbers,  but  incendiaries  and 
murderers.  But,  knowing  as  I  do  that  no  real  Anarchist  has 
any  part  or  lot  in  these  infamies,  I  do  not  confess  the  facts 
with  shame,  but  reiterate  them  with  righteous  wrath  and  in- 
dignation, in  the  interest  of  my  cause,  for  the  protection  of  its 
friends,  and  to  save  the  lives  and  possessions  of  any  more 
weak  and  innocent  persons  from  being  wantonly  destroyed 
or  stolen  by  cold-blooded  villains  parading  in  the  mask  of 
reform. 

Yes,  the  time  has  come  to  speak.  It  is  even  well-nigh  too 
late.  Within  the  past  fortnight  a  young  mother  and  her  baby 
boy  have  been  burned  to  death  under  circumstances  which 
suggest  to  me  the  possibility  that,  had  I  made  this  statement 
sooner,  their  lives  would  have  been  saved;  and,  as  I  now  write 
these  lines,  I  fairly  shudder  at  the  thought  that  they  may  not 
reach  the  public  and  the  interested  parties  before  some  new 
holocaust  has  added  to  the  number  of  those  who  have  already 
fallen  victims.  Others  who  know  the  facts,  well-meaning 
editors  of  leading  journals  of  so-called  Communistic  Anar- 
chism, may,  from  a  sense  of  mistaken  party  fealty,  bear  longer 


METHODS. 


43  1 


the  fearful  responsibility  of  silence,  if  they  will;  for  one  I  will 
not,  cannot.  I  will  take  the  other  responsibility  of  exposure, 
which  responsibility  I  personally  and  entirely  assume,  although 
the  step  is  taken  after  conference  upon  its  wisdom  with  some 
of  the  most  trusted  and  active  Anarchists  in  America. 

Now,  then,  the  facts.  And  they  are  facts,  though  I  state 
them  generally,  without  names,  dates,  or  details. 

The  main  fact  is  this  :  that  for  nearly  two  years  a  large  num- 
ber of  the  most  active  members  of  the  German  Group  of  the 
International  Working  People's  Association  in  New  York  City, 
and  of  the  Social  Revolutionary  Club,  another  German  organi- 
zation in  that  city,  have  been  persistently  engaged  in  get- 
ting money  by  insuring  their  property  for  amounts  far  in  excess 
of  the  real  value  thereof,  secretly  removing  everything  that 
they  could,  setting  fire  to  the  premises,  swearing  to  heavy 
losses,  and  exacting  corresponding  sums  from  the  insurance 
companies.  Explosion  of  kerosene  lamps  is  usually  the  device 
which  they  employ.  Some  seven  or  eight  fires,  at  least,  of 
this  sort  were  set  in  New  York  and  Brooklyn  in  1884  by  mem- 
bers of  the  gang,  netting  the  beneficiaries  an  aggregate  profit 
of  thousands  of  dollars.  In  1885  nearly  twenty  more  were 
set,  with  equally  profitable*  results.  The  record  for  1886  has 
reached  six  already,  if  not  more.  The  business  has  been  car- 
ried on  with  the  most  astonishing  audacity.  One  of  these  men 
had  his  premises  insured,  fired  them,  and  presented  his  bill  of 
loss  to  the  company  within  twenty-four  hours  after  getting  his 
policy,  and  before  the  agent  had  reported  the  policy  to  the 
company.  The  bill  was  paid,  and  a  few  months  later  the 
same  fellow,  under  another  name,  played  the  game  over  again, 
though  not  quite  so  speedily.  In  one  of  the  fires  set  in  1885 
a  woman  and  two  children  were  burned  to  death.  The  two 
guilty  parties  in  this  case  were  members  of  the  Bohemian 
Group  and  are  now  serving  life  sentences  in  prison.  Another 
of  the  fires  was  started  in  a  six-story  tenement  house,  endan- 
gering the  lives  of  hundreds,  but  fortunately  injuring  no  one 
but  the  incendiary.  In  one  case  in  1886  the  firemen  have 
saved  two  women  whom  they  found  clinging  to  their  bed-posts 
in  a  half-suffocated  condition.  In  another  a  man,  woman,  and 
baby  lost  their  lives.  Three  members  of  the  gang  are  now  in 
jail  awaiting  trial  for  murdering  and  robbing  an  old  woman 
in  Jersey  City.  Two  others  are  in  jail  under  heavy  bail  and 
awaiting  trial  for  carrying  concealed  weapons  and  assaulting  an 
officer.  They  were  walking  arsenals,  and  were  found  under 
circumstances  which  lead  to  the  suspicion  that  they  were 
about  to  perpetrate  a  robbery,  if  not  a  murder. 


432 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


The  profits  accruing  from  this  "  propagandism  by  deed  " 
are  not  even  used  for  the  benefit  of  the  movement  to  which 
the  criminals  belong,  but  go  to  fill  their  own  empty  pockets, 
and  are  often  spent  in  reckless,  riotous  living.  The  guilty 
parties  are  growing  bolder  and  bolder,  and,  anticipating  detec- 
tion ultimately,  a  dozen  or  so  of  them  have  agreed  to  commit 
perjury  in  order  to  involve  the  innocent  as  accomplices  in  their 
crimes.  It  is  their  boast  that  the  active  Anarchists  shall  all 
go  to  the  gallows  together. 

It  is  only  fair  to  John  Most,  editor  of  the  Freiheit,  to  say 
that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  originating  the  plots  of  these 
criminals,  and  for  a  long  time  was  unaware  of  what  was  going 
on  ;  but  it  is  none  the  less  true  that,  after  he  was  made  aware 
of  these  acts,  he  not  only  refused  to  repudiate  them,  but  per- 
sisted in  retaining  as  his  right-hand  men  some  of  the  worst 
of  the  gang.  The  facts  have  been  coming  to  light  one  by 
one  for  some  time,  and  the  knowledge  of  them  has  been  a 
torture  to  all  decent  men  who  have  had  any  connection  with 
the  Communists.  Justus  Schwab,  who  is  an  exceptionally 
honest  man,  sickened  long  ago.  He  abandoned  the  business 
management  of  the  Freiheit,  summarily  ejected  all  the  crimi- 
nals from  his  saloon  with  a  warning  not  to  visit  it  again,  and 
served  notice  on  his  friend  Most  that  he  (Most)  must  entirely 
sever  his  connection  with  the  villains  or  he  (Schwab)  would 
sever  his  connection  with  him.  Thus  called  upon  to  choose, 
Most  elected  to  lose  Schwab  and  keep  the  criminals  as  his 
lieutenants.  Perhaps  he  was  too  dependent  on  them  to  do 
otherwise.  Now  Schwab  is  posted  in  the  Freiheit  as  a  man 
with  whom  no  Socialist  should  have  anything  to  do.  An  er- 
roneous conception  of  party  duty  has  kept  Schwab  quiet  so  far 
as  the  public  are  concerned.  I  trust  he  will  realize  ere  long 
that  he  cannot  truly  serve  his  party  in  any  such  way.  It  is 
high  time  that  he  threw  off  this  yoke  of  party  loyalty  and 
spoke  out  like  a  man. 

One  of  the  most  astonishing  features  of  this  abominable 
business  has  been  the  blindness  of  the  police,  the  press,  and  the 
insurance  companies.  Although  in  a  number  of  cases  the  crim- 
inals have  been  detected  and  arrested,  the  fact  that  these  men 
all  belong  to  one  or  two  organizations  and  are  acting  in  ac- 
cordance with  a  course  agreed  upon  has  not  dawned  upon  the 
mind  of  any  detective  or  reporter,  although  it  is  an  open  secret 
among  the  German-speaking  Socialists  of  New  York.  So  far 
as  the  authorities  or  the  newspapers  have  hitherto  suspected, 
each  of  these  offences  is  simply  an  isolated  case  of  crime. 
How  vigilantly  our  lives  and  possessions  are  protected  by  this 


METHODS. 


433 


government  of  ours  !  One  would  think  that  the  interests  of 
the  insurance  companies  would  prompt  them  at  least  to  greater 
vigilance-.  But  they  have  been  as  blind  as  the  rest,  and 
paid  this  extraordinary  series  of  losses  seemingly  without  a 
question. 

The  attempt  will  doubtless  be  made  in  some  quarters  to  vin- 
dicate these  horrors  as  so  many  revolutionary  acts.  It  will  fail. 
Private  greed  and  popular  vengeance  have  nothing  in  com- 
mon. Even  so  rigid  a  Communistic  journal  as  Le  Rc'voltc 
pointed  out  some  time  ago  that  the  Revolution  can  have  no 
solidarity  with  thieves.  It  was  one  thing  to  kill  the  Czar  of 
Russia,  it  is  quite  another  to  kill  and  rob  an  innocent  old 
woman  ;  it  was  one  thing  for  the  striking  miners  of  Decaze- 
ville  to  take  the  life  of  the  superintendent  who  had  entered 
into  a  conspiracy  with  the  corporation  to  reduce  the  miners' 
wages  in  consideration  of  a  percentage,  it  is  a  far  different 
thing  for  lazy,  selfish,  cowardly  brutes  to  set  fire  to  a  tenement 
house  containing  hundreds  of  human  beings.  There  are  cer- 
tain things  which  circumstances  justify;  there  are  certain 
others  which  all  lofty  human  instincts  condemn.  To  the  lat- 
ter class  belong  these  deeds  of  John  Most's  followers. 

John  Most  has  had  a  great  deal  -to  say  about  the  "beast  of 
property."  Property  as  it  now  exists,  backed  by  legal  privilege, 
is  unquestionably  a  horrible  monster,  causing  untold  and  uni- 
versal suffering;  but  I  doubt  if  it  can  equal  in  essential  cruelty 
the  act  of  a  father  who  will  insure  the  lives  of  his  wife  and 
boy  and  conspire  to  cause  their  death  that  he  may  fill  his 
pockets  with  a  few  paltry  dollars.  Of  such  acts  as  that  the 
Beast  of  Communism  seems  to  have  a  monopoly. 

In  conclusion,  I  appeal  to  every  honorable  newspaper  in 
America  to  lay  these  facts  before  its  readers,  placing  the  blame 
where  it  belongs  and  distinguishing  the  innocent  from  the 
guilty.  And  especially  do  I  address  the  Anarchistic  press. 
Every  Anarchistic  journal  ought  to  copy  this  exposure  and 
send  it  forth  with  the  stamp  of  its  approval.  The  cause  is  en- 
tering upon  a  serious  crisis.  The  malicious  and  the  ignorant 
will  do  their  utmost  to  damage  it.  Much  will  depend  upon 
the  promptness  with  which  good  men  and  true  separate  them- 
selves from  common  criminals.  He  who  is  not  against  their 
crimes  is  for  them. 


434 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


TIME  WILL  TELL. 

\Liberty,  April  17,  1886.] 

To  the  fearful  charges  of  crime  made  in  the  last  issue  of 
Liberty  against  the  "  Communistic  Anarchists  "  of  New  York 
and  vicinity,  John  Most  makes  answer  in  Freiheit.  After  ex- 
hausting his  choice  vocabulary  of  epithets  upon  myself  and 
parties  whom  he  supposes  to  be  behind  me,  he  says  that  the 
press  have  ignored  the  charges  as  foolish  ;  that  I  could  not 
know  that  such  deeds  have  been  done,  because  I  live  in  Bos- 
ton; that  the  two  Bohemians  referred  to  by  me  did  not  belong 
to  the  Bohemian  group ;  that  Schwab  left  the  Freiheit,  not  to 
separate  himself  from  crime,  but  out  of  cowardice  and  fear  of 
the  police  ;  that  he  (Most)  was  never  informed  that  such 
crimes  had  been  perpetrated  ;  that,  if  he  had  been,  he  would 
have  done  nothing  about  it,  because  he  never  meddles  with 
private  matters  that  do  not  concern  the  party;  and  that  he  has 
not  had  criminals  for  lieutenants.  I  do  not  see  why  he  did 
not  add  one  more  to  his  catalogue  of  lies  by  saying  either  that 
the  crimes  alleged  by  me  were  never  committed,  or  that  they 
were  not  committed  by  members  of  the  organizations  which  I 
mentioned.  Perhaps  he  was  deterred  from  this  by  the  memory 
that  he  has  admitted  in  the  presence  of  a  dozen  persons  the 
perpetration  of  the  crimes,  and  attempted  to  apologize  for  or 
excuse  the  guilty  parties. 

I  do  not  propose  to  bandy  words  with  John  Most.  It  has 
never  been  my  intention  to  try  these  charges,  or  prove  them, 
in  these  columns.  Sooner  or  later  that  will  be  done  else- 
where. But  I  have  nothing  to  retract.  On  the  contrary,  I 
reiterate  all  my  charges  as  emphatically  as  before,  and  declare 
that  I  kept  far  inside  of  the  horrible  truth.  Those  who  know 
me  know  that  I  would  not  make  such  charges  lightly.  I  came 
into  possession  of  certain  facts,  and  I  used  such  of  them  as  I 
chose  in  what  seemed  the  wisest  way.  I  have  done  what  I 
could  to  save  the  lives  and  possessions  of  unoffending  people 
and  to  save  Anarchy  from  being  smirched  by  association, 
even  in  name,  with  crime  and  criminals.  The  poor  fools  who 
choose  to  attribute  my  course  to  jealousy,  envy,  revenge,  or 
any  other  petty  motive  whatsoever,  may  wag  their  tongues  as 
they  will  ;  I  wait  for  Time  to  do  justice  to  the  firebugs,  to 
their  friend,  John  Most,  and  to  their  enemy,  myself.  And  I 
shall  not  wait  in  vain. 


METHODS. 


435 


THE  FACTS  COMING  TO  LIGHT. 

{Liberty,  May  22,  1886.] 

In  a  recent  editorial,  speaking  of  my  accusations  against 
the  firebugs,  I  said  :  "  It  has  never  been  my  intention  to  try 
these  charges,  or  prove  them,  in  these  columns.  Sooner  or 
later  that  will  be  done  elsewhere."  That  I  was  not  talking  at 
random  has  since  been  shown  by  the  appearance  of  a  remark- 
able article  in  the  New  York  Sun,  of  May  3,  corroborating 
the  charges  in  a  way  that  defies  all  answer.  After  referring  to 
Liberty  s  exposure  and  Most's  answer  thereto,  the  Sun  says  : 

An  attempt  to  verify  Most's  denial  discloses  a  peculiar  condition  of 
things  in  Anarchistic  circles  here.  There  is  internal  dissension  and  dis- 
cord, or  rather  there  was,  for  a  considerable  number  of  the  hundred  or  so 
members  of  the  International  Working  People's  Association  have  with- 
drawn from  it.  The  cause  of  the  secession  lies  in  the  facts  which  led 
Liberty  to  make  its  charges  of  incendiarism  and  rascality.  These  facts, 
which  have  been  gleaned  after  considerable  difficulty,  show  that  the 
leading  members  of  the  International  Working  People's  Association 
have  been  remarkably  unlucky  men.  Taken  in  connection  with  Most's 
extraordinary  doctrines,  the  curious  fires  from  which  these  gentlemen 
have  suffered  are  interesting.  They  have  all  originated  in  the  upsetting, 
breaking,  or  exploding  of  kerosene  oil  lamps,  and  have  resulted  in  more  or 
less  damage  to  the  property  of  others  than  Anarchists,  and  in  the  collec- 
tion of  more  or  less  insurance  money  each  time  by  the  persons  in  Whose 
apartments  the  fires  occurred. 

Before  taking  up  these  occurrences  in  detail,  it  will  be  interesting  to  re- 
view rapidly  various  events  in  the  past  few  years  that  may  tend  to  throw 
light  upon  the  German  revolutionists  of  America. 

After  this  historical  review,  the  Sun  describes  the  mechani- 
cal devices  for  carrying  on  "  propaganda  by  deed,"  according 
to  the  instructions  laid  down  by  John  Most  in  his  pamphlet, 
"  Revolutionary  War  Science,"  and  proceeds  as  follows  : 

It  is  by  no  means  asserted  that  Mr.  Most  has  himself  put  into  practical 
use  any  of  his  destructive  devices,  or  even  that  his  friends  and  followers 
have  done  so,  but  certain  it  is  that  the  idea  of  "  propaganda  by  deed  "  was 
received  by  several  members  of  the  International  Working  People's  Asso- 
ciation with  enthusiasm.  Earnest  and  eloquent  in  seconding  and  advocat- 
ing Most's  doctrines  were  Comrades  J.  C.  Panzenbeck  and  Joseph  Kaiser. 
These  two  are  frequently  mentioned  in  Freiheit  as  having  partaken  in  the 
public  discussions  of  the  association,  as  well  as  having  made  set  addresses 
on  revolutionary  topics.  Among  the  radical  Socialists  of  the  city  they  are 
known  as  having  extremely  "  radical"  views  upon  their  relation  to  so- 
ciety. Others  who  listened  with  marked  attention  to  the  seductive  doc- 
trine were  Comrades  Fritz  C.  Schaar,  Wilhelm  Scharff,  Carl  Heusler,  Otto 
Nicolai,  Hermann  Wabnitz,  Adolph  Kramer,  and  Comrades  Nolle,  WV 


43^ 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


ber,  Kubitsch,  and  Beck.  Some  of  these,  as  Schaar  and  Kubitsch  and  Beck, 
are  acknowledged  as  members  in  Freiheit  ;  the  others  are  well  known  a,s 
frequenters  of  the  meetings  now  held  in  Coburger  Hall,  Stanton  street, 
but  formerly  in  a  hall  on  Bond  street,  and  in  various  other  places  where 
the  association  met  to  hear  Most's  harangues.  Quiet  inquiries  in  various 
quarters  elicited  the  invariable  response  that  all  these  men  were  Most's 
associates  and  members  of  either  the  International  Working  People's  As- 
sociation or  the  Social  Revolutionary  Club. 

On  the  evening  of  May  14,  1S83,  Comrade  Joseph  Kaiser  was  so  unfor- 
tunate as  to  suffer  the  ravages  of  a  fire  in  his  tenement  at  432  East  Four- 
teenth street.  The  fourth  floor  of  this  building  was  occupied  by  Adolph 
Kramer  as  a  dwelling.  Kaiser  lived  on  the  third  floor,  where  the  fire 
originated,  owing,  according  to  the  story  told  to  the  firemen,  to  Mrs. 
Kaiser's  accidentally  letting  a  kerosene  lamp  fall.  The  building  was 
damaged  to  the  extent  of  $250.  Mr.  Kaiser's  furniture  naturally  suf- 
fered some  injury, — $25  worth,  say  the  official  records  of  the  Fire  Depart- 
ment. The  insurance  company  which  took  the  risk  on  the  property, 
however,  thought  differently,  and  settled  with  the  agitator  for  $278.68. 
The  amount  of  the  policy  was  $300,  and  it  is  a  piece  of  good  fortune  that 
Mr.  Kaiser  had  managed  to  secure  the  policy  on  May  7,  a  week  preced- 
ing the  calamity. 

On  November  27  John  Charles  Panzenbeck  was  then  living  at  406  East 
Sixty-third  street.  He  or  some  resident  of  the  building  told  the  firemen 
that  a  picture  fell  from  its  place  on  the  wall  and  knocked  over  a  kero- 
sene oil  lamp.  At  any  rate,  the  fire  resulting  from  this  or  some  other  cause 
damaged  the  house  to  the  extent  of  $1,000,  but  Caroline  Yost,  the  owner, 
was  amply  insured.  The  contents  of  Panzenbeck's  suite  on  the  third  floor 
were  injured  to  the  amount  of  several  hundred  dollars,  he  said.  Some 
time  in  the  first  part  of  the  month  he  had  luckily  taken  out  a  policy  for 
$700,  and  was  paid  nearly  that  amount  as  indemnity.  Other  tenants  in 
the  house  lost  from  $50  to  $100  each. 

On  the  29th  of  December,  1884,  Wilhelm  Scharff  applied  to  one  of  the 
greatest  companies  in  the  city  for  a  policy  upon  worldly  goods  contained 
in  the  fourth  floor  tenement  of  400  East  Fifty-ninth  street.  His  applica- 
tion was  successful,  and  after  the  lapse  of  a  few  days  he  found  himself 
the  holder  of  a  document  securing  him  against  loss  by  fire  to  the  extent 
of  $500.  This  was  peculiarly  fortunate  ;  for,  in  the  evening  of  January  5, 
1885,  six  days  after  his  application,  a  kerosene  lamp  upset  in  his  apart- 
ments and  fire  broke  out.  The  damage  to  the  building,  owned  by  John 
D.  Hines,  was  not  over  $200.  The  record  maker  of  the  Fire  Department 
thought  Scharff's  furniture  was  not  injured  over  $200  worth,  but  the 
insurance  company  nevertheless  were  induced  to  settle  for  $456.25.  An 
interesting  feature  of  this  case  was  that,  when  Scharff  presented  his  bill  of 
losses  at  the  headquarters  of  the  company,  the  day  after  the  fire,  his  pol- 
icy had  not  been  registered.    The  money,  however,  was  paid  over. 

Some  time  in  this  same  year  Carl  Heusler,  Social  Democrat,  established 
a  small  fancy-goods  store  at  137  Ludlow  street.  The  building  is  a  six- 
story  tenement  house,  and  was  occupied  in  all  apartments.  On  the  even- 
ing of  June  5,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Heusler,  after  shutting  up  shop,  entertained 
a  few  friends  in  the  room  back  of  the  store.  These  people  were  Joseph 
Kaiser  and  his  wife  Mary,  who  lived  at  the  time  at  65  Walton  street, 
Brooklyn  ;  Hermann  Wabnitz  of  61  East  Eleventh  street,  Carl  Baum  of  98 
Avenue  B,  and  Otto  Nicolai,  the  engineer  of  St.  Charles  Hotel.  Shortly 
after  nine  o'clock  a  kerosene  oil  lamp  exploded,  and  besides  damaging 
the  property  caused  severe  but  not  dangerous  injuries  to  the  little  party. 


METHODS. 


437 


No  one  else  in  the  building  was  hurt,  though  great  exitement  prevailed, 
and  the  fire  was  soon  extinguished.  Heusler's  goods  were  insured,  and  a 
collection  of  upward  of  $300  was  made  from  the  company.  Most  of  the 
unfortunate  persons  present,  however,  had  to  pass  two  or  three  weeks  in 
the  hospital,  some  going  to  Bellevue,  others  to  the  New  York  Hospital. 
Heusler  had  but  recently  stocked  up  his  store,  and  did  not  resume  business 
after  this  unfortunate  event. 

Long  before  this  the  International  Working  People's  Association  had 
suffered  several  secessions.  Certain  of  the  members  became  suspicious  of 
their  comrades,  and  preferred  to  withdraw  from  association  with  them. 
The  seceders  are  one  and  all  exceedingly  reticent  on  the  subject,  and  it 
was  difficult  to  obtain  information  from  them.  This  much,  however,  is 
certain  :  It  was  frequently  asserted  among  the  habitues  of  saloons  where 
the  advanced  Socialists  are  in  the  habit  of  congregating  that  accidents  to 
kerosene  lamps  were  sometimes  arranged  with  great  skill;  that  the  com-, 
rades  were  shrewd  and  successful  in  their  onslaughts  on  capitalistic  so- 
ciety. It  was  even  asserted  that  the  injuries  received  by  the  party  in 
Heusler's  back  room  were  due  to  the  premature  appearance  of  the  fire 
fiend,  owing  to  carelessness  in  handling  the  materials  or  ignorance  of  the 
teachings  of  Kriegswissenschaft. 

But  these  are  not  the  only  fires  that  have  visited  the  agitators.  On  Feb- 
ruary 1,  1885,  Adolph  Kramer  took  possession  of  a  tenement  at  157  Ellery 
street,  Brooklyn,  in  the  house  owned  and  in  part  occupied  by  Frederick 
Stuft.  At  ten  o'clock  in  the  evening  of  February  9  a  kerosene  oil  lamp 
broke  in  his  apartments,  and  an  interesting  conflagration  was  the  result. 
Stuft's  house  was  seriously  damaged,  over  $300  worth,  he  says,  and 
Kramer's  furniture  and  belongings  to  an  unknown  amount.  Mr.  Kramer 
was  paid  $300  by  the  insurance  company.  It  was  not,  however,  until 
Kramer  had  been  prosecuted  ineffectually  on  a  charge  of  incendiarism  that 
he  collected  from  the  company. 

In  the  autumn  of  the  same  year  a  similar  accident  happened  in  the  tene- 
ment of  a  house  on  Clinton  avenue,  West  Hoboken,  occupied  by  Fritz  C. 
Schaar.  The  house,  owned  by  Mr.  William  Murphy,  was  so  badly 
damaged  that  only  the  walls  remained  intact.  Mr.  Schaar  was  fortunately 
insured. 

Mr.  Murphy,  owner,  noted  the  fact  that,  when  he  arrived  at  the  scene, 
the  only  thing  burning  was  a  bed,  and  that  a  strong  odor  of  kerosene  per- 
vaded the  entire  building.  But  the  odor  may  have  been  caused  entirely 
by  the  lamp,  and  the  lamp  might  have  been  placed  accidentally  near  the 
bed  before  it  broke. 

Another  unfortunate  Anarchist  was  Louis  Weber,  who  lived  at  84  Ave- 
nue A.  The  lamp  exploded  in  his  tenement  at  7.53  o'clock  in  the  evening 
of  November  30  last.    His  furniture  was  insured  for  $600. 

Not  long  ago  Wilhelm  Scharff  and  Carl  Wilmund  were  arrested  for  car- 
rying concealed  weapons  with  felonious  intent.  The  circumstances  are 
well  known,  although  Scharff  was  then  travelling  under  the  alias  Schliman, 
and  was  convicted  under  that  name.  He  is  at  the  penitentiary  on  Black- 
well's  Island,  and  Wilmund  was  sent  to  State  prison  for  three  and  a  half 
years  by  Recorder  Smyth  on  Monday  last.  It  may  be  remembered  that  a 
letter  was  found  upon  Wilmund  in  which  he  addressed  himself  to  Most, 
offering  his  services  in  the  cause  of  propaganda  by  deed. 

The  flaxen-haired  Justus  Schwab  was  approached.  The  reticence  of  this 
reformer  is  well  known,  and  in  this  instance  he  preserved  his  character. 

"  I  would  rather  have  nothing  further  to  say,"  remarked  Mr.  Schwab  to 
the  reporter;  "  you  know  how  it  is  yourself?" 


43* 


INSTEAD  OF   A  HOOK. 


"  But  would  you  explain  upon  what  grounds  you  ejected  Wilhelm 
Scharff,  alias  Schliman,  Adolph  Kramer,  and  Joseph  Kaiser  from  your 
saloon,  and  forbade  their  return  ? " 

The  muscular  German  drew  himself  up  to  his  full  height,  and  exclaimed 
sharply  :    "  Where  did  you  get  those  names?" 

"  From  the  official  records  of  the  Fire  Department,"  replied  the  repor- 
ter. 

The  answer  apparently  failed  to  satisfy  Mr.  Schwab.  However,  he 
said  : 

"  I  turned  them  out  because  I  had  good  reason  to  believe  that  they 
were  immoral  men,  and  that  is  reason  enough  for  me." 

An  interesting  interview  was  obtained  with  a  young  mechanic  who  is 
conversant  with  these  affairs.  He  suggested  a  way  in  which  such  fires  as 
have  occurred  might  have  been  set,  had  the  occupants  so  desired. 

"They  might  take  a  lamp,  filled  witi.  he  said,  "  and  securely  plug 

up  the  passage  on  the  side  of  the  burner  intended  for  the  escape  of  gases. 
Then,  if  the  lamp  be  lighted  and  a  candle  placed  so  that  the  candle  flame 
touches  the  oil  chamber,  gases  will  be  quickly  generated  that,  having  no 
means  of  escape,  will  soon  break  the  lamp  and  cause  a  fire.  If  the  mate- 
rials are  skilfully  placed,  the  breaking  lamp  will  be  sure  to  tip  the  candle 
off  the  table,  so  that  its  agency  will  not  be  suspected.  This  method  may 
be  made  more  sure  by  saturating  strips  of  cloth  with  benzine  and  laying 
them  from  a  point  near  the  lamp  to  inflammable  material  elsewhere  in 
the  room.  Benzine  leaves  no  trace,  and  its  fire-conducting  qualities  are  so 
powerful  that  an  experiment  of  this  kind  is  perfectly  sure  of  success.  But 
if  the  parties  at  work  are  careless  in  handling  the  benzine,  a  conflagration 
may  take  place  prematurely,  and  somebody  will  get  hurt." 

The  article  from  the  Sun,  although  it  does  not  tell  one-half 
the  truth  or  the  worst  half,  is  a  collation  of  names,  dates, 
facts,  and  figures  from  official  records  sufficient  to  convince 
every  fair-minded  person  that  I  told  the  truth  about  the 
scoundrels  who  are  practising  the  precepts  of  John  Most. 
They  were  sifted  from  an  immense  mass  of  material  by  weeks 
of  tireless  investigation  pursued  under  great  difficulties,  and 
the  writer  would  have  been  able  to  make  his  exposure  much 
more  complete  had  he  not  been  hampered  by  the  officials  of 
the  police  and  fire  departments  of  New  York,  whose  jealousy 
and  pique  at  being  outdone,  and  at  the  incidental  revelation 
of  their  own  stupidity,  incompetence,  and  negligence,  know 
no  bounds.  The  work  that  he  succeeded  in  doing,  however, 
has  thoroughly  scared  the  firebugs,  and  they  will  probably 
discontinue  their  hellish  practices.  If  not,  the  first  attempt  to 
renew  them  will  be  met  by  prompt  and  vigorous  exposure. 
The  charge  made  by  Freiheit  that  Moritz  Bachmann  wrote 
the  Sun  article  for  money  is  utterly  unfounded.  It  was  writ- 
ten by  a  professional  journalist  not  identified  with  the  An- 
archistic movement,  and  no  one  but  himself  received  any 
pay  for  it  or  for  the  facts  contained  in  it.  Most's  answer  to 
the  Sun  is  ridiculous  and  inadequate  in  the  extreme.    He  says 


METHODS. 


439 


that  he  does  not  know  whether  the  statements  are  true,  and 
that,  whether  true  or  not,  he  does  not  know  who  the  men 
mentioned  are.  Now,  the  greater  number  of  these  men  have 
been  mentioned  in  Freiheit  as  comrades  from  ten  to  fifty 
times  each,  and  by  a  singular  coincidence,  in  the  very  next  col- 
umn to  that  containing  this  audacious  assertion,  Panzenbeck, 
one  of  the  first  of  the  firebugs,  is  credited  with  a  certain  sum 
of  money  among  the  cash  receipts.  Most  then  asks,  with 
characteristic  assurance,  if  it  is  to  be  expected  that  Anar- 
chists' houses  will  never  take  fire,  and  suggests  the  advisability 
of  preparing  a  list  of  such  capitalists'  houses  as  have  been 
burned.  It  will  be  time  enough  for  Most  to  talk  about  this 
when  he  can  find  a  society  of  one  hundred  capitalists  even  ten 
of  whom  (to  say  nothing  of  fifteen  or  twenty)  have  been  so  un- 
fortunate as  to  lose  their  property  by  separate  fires  within  a 
period  of  three  years,  and  so  prudent  as  in  each  case  to  take 
out  an  insurance  policy  somewhere  from  a  week  to  a  year  be- 
fore the  occurrence  of  the  calamity.  And  even  then,  would 
the  fact  that  he  could  fasten  such  crimes  upon  the  capitalists 
excuse  the  Communists  for  doing  likewise  ? 


LIBERTY  AND  VIOLENCE. 

{Liberty,  May  22,  1886.] 

The  recent  bomb-throwing  at  Chicago  opens  the  whole 
question  of  the  advisability  of  armed  revolution.  The  right  to 
resist  oppression  by  violence  is  beyond  doubt  ;  it  is  only  the 
policy  of  exercising  this  right  that  Anarchists  at  this  juncture 
have  to  consider.  In  Liberty's  view  but  one  thing  can  justify 
its  exercise  on  any  large  scale, — namely,  the  denial  of  free 
thought,  free  speech,  and  a  free  press.  Even  then  its  exercise 
would  be  unwise  unless  suppression  were  enforced  so  strin- 
gently that  all  other  means  of  throwing  it  off  had  become 
hopeless.  Bloodshed  in  itself  is  pure  loss.  When  we  must 
have  freedom  of  agitation,  and  when  nothing  but  bloodshed 
will  secure  it,  then  bloodshed  is  wise.  But  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  it  can  never  accomplish  the  Social  Revolution 
proper  ;  that  that  can  never  be  accomplished  except  by  means 
of  agitation,  investigation,  experiment,  and  passive  resistance  ; 
and  that,  after  all  the  bloodshed,  we  shall  be  exactly  where 
we  were  before,  except  in  our  possession  of  the  power  to  use 
these  means. 


440 


INSTEAD  OF   A  HOOK. 


One  thing  the  Chicago  bomb-thrower  established  emphati- 
cally,— the  superiority  of  dynamite  to  the  Winchester  rifle.  No 
riot  has  occurred  in  this  country  in  which  so  many  policemen 
were  killed  and  wounded  at  one  time  as  by  this  single  bomb  ; 
at  least,  so  I  am  informed.  As  a  true  terrorist,  the  bomb- 
thrower  made  but  one  mistake, — in  choosing  a  time  when  a 
crowd  of  working  people  were  gathered  upon  whom  the  police 
could  wreak  their  vengeance.  If  it  becomes  necessary  to  vin- 
dicate free  speech  by  force,  the  work  will  have  to  consist  of  a 
series  of  acts  of  individual  dynamiters.  The  days  of  armed 
revolution  have  gone  by.  It  is  too  easily  put  down.  On  this 
point  I  may  quote  an  instructive  extract  from  a  private  letter 
written  to  me  by  Dr.  Joseph  H.  Swain,  of  San  Francisco,  a  few 
days  before  the  Chicago  troubles  broke  out  : 

For  two  or  three  weeks  we  have  had  labor  orators  from  Oregon,  Wash- 
ington Territory,  Colorado,  Kansas,  etc.  They  tell  us  that  we  are  be- 
hind. In  the  places  named  labor  societies  are  being  organized  and  armed 
with  Winchester  rifles,  while,  as  one  of  the  fire-eaters  said,  we  of  San 
Francisco  are  not  prepared  to  even  lift  a  toothpick  in  a  contest  with  cap- 
ital. They  claim  there  are  many  men  already  prepared  for  the  coming 
conflict,  and  in  Denver  many  women, — I  think  seventy, — all  of  whom  are 
expert  rifiemen.  They  are  urging  the  Socialists  here  to  do  the  same. 
There  is  a  good  deal  of  secrecy.  Some  time  ago  it  was  said  that  the 
Knights  of  Labor  Executive  Committee  ordered  the  local  bodies  to  cease 
adding  members  or  to  go  slow,  the  reason  given  being  that  men  were 
joining  before  they  understood  the  objects  of  the  order.  I  think  it  was 
because  revolutionists  were  joining.  These  men  say  that  the  Knights  in 
the  above  States  are  Socialists.  I  think  the  trouble  on  the  Gould  line 
was  caused  by  these  revolutionary  Knights.  Powderly  sees  they  are 
likely  to  swamp  the  order.  Powderly  is  a  good  fellow,  but  doesn't  un- 
derstand the  labor  problem.  He  thinks  the  Knights  could  make  money 
running  Gould's  railroad.  One  orator  said  revolutions  started  in  con- 
servative reform  bodies,  but  soon  the  radicals  took  them  out  of  their 
hands.  The  Socialists  would  do  the  same  with  this  movement  of  the 
Knights.  He  said  the  Anarchists  in  Chicago  were  pretty  good  fellows. 
They  predict  an  uprising  within  a  year.  I  think  there  is  great  activity 
among  these  advocates  of  armed  resistance.  Their  statement  is  that 
they  must  be  armed  to  command  the  respect  of  the  capitalists  and  to  pre- 
vent an  attack.  Like  Grant,  they  will  have  peace  if  they  have  to  fight 
for  it, — the  peace  of  Warsaw.  Which  means,  if  they  are  armed,  they  can 
seize  a  railroad,  and  the  owners  won't  dare  to  resist.  As  one  speaker 
from  Kansas  said  last  night,  the  strikers  had  a  right  to  prevent  others 
from  taking  their  places,  for  they  had  acquired  a  labor  title  to  the  road, — 
i.e.,  were  owners  as  well  as  the  capitalists.  He  did  not  use  the  term  labor 
title,  but  that  was  the  idea.  Of  course,  then,  they  will  justify  themselves 
in  seizing  the  railroad,  their  property.  If  a  conflict  is  precipitated  it  will 
be  a  severe  blow  to  Liberty,  and  the  fellows  will  find  what  fools  they  are, 
or  were.  They  forget  that  it  is  brains,  skill,  long  training,  knowledge, 
and  natural  fitness  that  win  in  a  contest  of  arms  ;  that  the  men  so  quali- 
fied are  in  the  service  of  capital,  and  that  they  will  lead  other  working- 
men  against  these  undisciplined  bodies,  so  that  workingmen  will  shoot 


METHODS. 


down  each  other.  Fatal  error,  to  think  they  can  intimidate  the  capital- 
ists, who  are  mostly  men  of  courage  and  superior  to  the  masses,  and  as 
sincere  in  their  opinions  as  to  their  rights  to  the  property  they  control. 
Then,  the  rebels  will  be  in  small  bodies  and  unable  to  concentrate,  for 
the  authorities  will  hold  the  depots  and  use  trains,  if  they  are  run  at  all, 
to  concentrate  troops  at  given  points,  which  the  rebels  will  be  unable  to 
reach.  This  will  afford  the  capitalists  an  excuse  for  a  strong  government, 
and  progress  will  be  retarded.  The  net  gain  will  be  money  in  the  pock- 
ets of  manufacturers  of  guns  and  other  war  munitions,  and  a  strong  gov- 
ernment, with  loss  incalculable  to  the  workers,  who  will  lose  some  of  the 
liberty  they  now  have,  and  have  to  pay  the  cost  of  the  war.  If  I  could 
control  the  men  in  all  these  labor  organizations,  I  could,  without  even 
lifting  a  toothpick  other  than  to  write  with  it,  in  a  perfectly  quiet  way. 
bring  capital  to  its  knees  ;  or,  if  I  thought  it  just  and  wise,  force  propri- 
etors to  sell  their  property  at  cost,  or  less.  A  resort  to  arms  is  suicidal 
to  the  side  that  initiates  it.  Moral  force  once  clearly  perceived  as  a  social 
principle  will  be  found  to  yield  inexhaustible  working  power  to  defend 
natural  rights.  The  simplicity  of  the  thing  is  so  apparent  when  you 
once  strike  a  true  lead  that  all  brute  force  would  cease.  What  a  glorious 
chance  the  Irish  had  to  rid  themselves  of  landlords  and  politicians  !  Had 
the  no-rent  policy  been  adhered  to  one  year,  the  landlords  would  have 
been  beggared.  The  price  of  land  would  have  been  discovered  to  have 
its  only  basis  in  monopoly,  seizure,  legal  title.  One  such  success  would 
have  opened  the  eyes  of  all  civilized  men  to  the  weakness  of  brute  force 
in  a  contest  with  moral  force,  and  would  have  shown  the  ease  with  which 
governments  could  be  rendered  powerless  What  a  fraud  and  shadow 
they  are,  terrible  only  to  childish  men  !  If  there  were  a  God,  he  would 
never  forgive  Parnell  and  the  priests  for  furling  the  no-rent  banner.  If 
we  could  get  but  one  such  illustration  of  passive  resistance  on  a  large 
scale,  Anarchy  would  be  an  accomplished  fact. 

I  can  add  nothing  to  these  wise  words,  nor  can  I  make 
plainer  their  valuable  lesson. 

Leaving  now  our  consideration  of  the  actual  throwing  of  the 
bomb,  surrounding  which,  as  I  said,  there  is  some  doubt,  let  us 
glance  a  moment  at  what  has  happened  since,  regarding  which 
there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  conduct  during  the  last  fortnight 
of  the  police,  the  courts,  the  pulpit,  and  the  press,  including 
many  of  the  labor  organs  themselves,  has  been  shameful  in  the 
extreme.  Mammon's  priests  have  foamed  at  the  mouth  ;  the 
servants  of  Plutus  who  sit  in  editorial  chairs  have  frothed  at 
the  point  of  the  pen  ;  the  stalwart  graduates  of  the  slums  who 
are  licensed  and  paid  to  swing  shillalahs  over  the  heads  of  un- 
offending citizens  have  shrieked  for  vengeance  ;  and  wearers 
of  judicial  ermine  on  which  there  is  room  for  no  new  spots 
have  virtually  declared  their  determination  to  know  no  bounds 
of  right,  mercy,  or  decency  in  dealing  with  any  Anarchist  who 
may  be  brought  before  them.  Spies  and  Fielden  have  been 
arrested  and  held  for  murder,  though  they  are  not  known  to 
have  done  anything  worse  than  to  speak  their  minds  ;  nearly 
every  one  in  Chicago  who  has  dared  to  avow  himself  an  An- 


442 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


archist  has  been  clapped  into  jail,  and  those  who  reach  that 
haven  without  a  broken  head  deem  themselves  peculiarly  for- 
tunate ;  houses  have  been  broken  into  and  searched  by  whole- 
sale ;  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  and  the  Alarm,  and,  for  aught  I 
know,  the  Budoucnost,  have  been  suppressed  without  a  shadow 
of  natural  or  legal  right  ;  to  be  a  German  is  to  be  looked  upon 
with  suspicion,  and  to  be  a  Pole  or  Bohemian  is  to  be  afraid 
to  show  one's  head  ;  and  it  has  become  exceedingly  unsafe  for 
the  most  respectable  of  men  to  stand  upon  the  streets  of  Chi- 
cago and  question  the  superiority  of  existing  social  and  polit- 
ical systems  to  the  Utopia  of  Sir  Thomas  More.  Talk  about 
the  Communists  being  madmen  !  The  authorities  and  their 
mouthpieces  are  the  real  ?nadmen  now.  One  would  think  that 
the  throwing  of  this  bomb  was  the  first  act  of  violence  ever 
committed  under  the  sun.  These  lunatics  seem  to  forget  that 
they  are  the  representatives  and  champions  of  a  standing  re- 
gime of  violence, — a  regime  which  is  a  perpetual  menace  lev- 
elled at  every  one  who  dares  to  claim  his  liberty  ;  a  re"gi??ie 
which  ties  the  hands  of  laborers  while  a  band  of  licensed  rob- 
bers called  capitalists  pick  their  pockets.  How  can  they  ex- 
pect aught  but  violence  from  their  victims  ?  The  fact  is,  there 
are  two  ways  of  inciting  the  suffering  classes  to  violence  :  one 
is  that  of  the  so-called  revolutionists,  who  directly  advise  them 
to  use  force  ;  the  other,  and  by  far  the  more  dangerous,  is  that 
of  the  so-called  friends  of  order  who  try  to  leave  them  no 
other  hope  than  force.  These  two  parties,  though  outwardly 
opposed,  really  play  into  each  other's  hands,  to  the  damage  of 
the  real  revolutionists  and  the  real  friends  of  order,  who  know 
that  force  settles  nothing,  and  that  no  question  is  ever  settled 
until  it  is  settled  right.  Just  as  truly  as  Liberty  is  the  mother 
of  order,  is  the  State  the  mother  of  violence. 


CONVICTED  BY  A  PACKED  JURY. 

[Liberty,  September  18,  1886.] 

Unjust  as  the  Chicago  verdict  was,  the  trial  brought  out 
certain  facts  regarding  Illinois  juries  by  which  other  commu- 
nities might  profit  and  at  which  Lysander  Spooner  must  re- 
joice. In  his  great  work,  now  out  of  print,  "  Trial  by  Jury," 
Mr.  Spooner  shows  how  the  practice  regarding  jury  trial  has 
been  turned  by  usurpation  from  the  original  theory,  until  it 
has  lost  altogether  the  three  features  that  made  it  most  potent 
as  a  safeguard  of  individual  liberty.    These  three  features 


METHODS. 


443 


were  :  i,  that  the  jury  must  be  chosen  by  lot  from  a  wheel 
containing  the  names  of  the  whole  body  of  citizens  of  the 
vicinity,  instead  of  from  a  selected  panel  ;  2,  that  it  must  be 
judge,  not  only  of  the  facts,  but  of  the  law  and  the  justice  of 
the  law  ;  3,  that  it  must  decide,  not  only  the  guilt  or  innocence 
of  the  accused,  but,  in  case  of  guilt,  the  nature  and  severity 
of  the  penalty. 

It  appears  from  the  charge  of  Judge  Gary  to  the  jury  in 
the  trial  at  Chicago  that  Illinois  law  has  restored,  nearly,  if 
not  quite  intact,  the  second  and  third  of  these  features.  Said 
the  judge : 

If  the  accilsed,  or  any  of  them,  are  found  guilty  by  the  jury,  they  shall 
fix  the  punishment  by  their  verdict. 

And  further  : 

The  jury  in  a  criminal  case  are,  by  the  statutes  of  Illinois,  made  judges 
of  the  law  and  the  evidence,  and  under  these  statutes  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
jury,  after  hearing  the  arguments  of  the  counsel  and  the  instructions  of  the 
court,  to  act  upon  the  law  and  facts  according  to  their  best  judgment  of 
such  law  and  such  facts.  The  jury  are  the  judges  of  the  law  and  the  facts, 
and  you,  as  jurors,  have  a  right  to  disregard  the  instructions  of  the  court, 
provided  you,  upon  your  oaths,  can  say  that  you  believe  you  know  the 
law  better  than  the  court. 

It  is  evident  that  in  the  hands  of  an  unprejudiced  jury 
endowed  with  such  powers  as  these  the  life  and  liberty  of  a 
person  unjustly  accused  would  be  well-nigh^  secure.  The 
trouble  in  Chicago  was  the  prejudice  of  the  jury.  And  this 
jury  was  made  up  wholly  of  prejudiced  men,  simply  because 
the  first  of  the  three  safeguards  referred  to  was  not  restored 
along  with  the  second  and  third.  If  the  twelve  men  compos- 
ing it,  instead  of  being  sifted  from  a  selected  panel  by  a 
method  of  examination  that  enables  the  prosecution  to  prac- 
tically pack  the  jury,  had  been  chosen  by  lot  from  all  the 
citizens  of  Chicago,  there  would  have  been  a  large  percentage 
of  workingmen  among  them,  some  or  all  of  whom  would  un- 
doubtedly have  seen  to  it  that  no  such  fate  was  meted  out  to 
the  eight  prisoners  as  that  under  the  awful  shadow  of  which 
they  now  rest.  But,  as  it  was,  the  whole  twelve  men  were  men 
whose  sympathies  and  interests  ranged  them  on  the  side  of 
capital  and  privilege,  and  they  were  determined  from  the 
start  to  hang  the  men  who  had  questioned  the  sacred  preroga- 
tives of  constituted  power.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  the 
State  will  never  sound  its  own  death-knell  by  restoring  the 
safeguard  that  is  still  lacking,  and  that  it  never  will  be  re- 
stored until  the  people  themselves  restore  it  by  bovcotting  the 
State. 


444 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


WHY  EXPECT  JUSTICE  FROM  THE  STATE? 

[Liberty,  September  18,  1886.] 

Charles  T.  Fowler  has  written  and  Lucifer  has  published 
a  very  able  article  showing  that  the  prosecution  at  Chicago  was 
a  prosecution  of  opinion  and  not  of  criminality,  that  the 
verdict  was  a  verdict  against  Anarchy  and  not  against  bomb- 
throwing,  and  that  the  offence  for  which  the  victims  are  to 
be  punished  was  not  actual,  but  purely  constructive.  Setting 
aside  the  doubtless  manufactured  but  certainly  direct  evi- 
dence put  forward  by  the  prosecution,  of  the  man  who  swore 
that  he  saw  Spies  light  the  fuse  and  hand  the  bomb  to 
Schnaubelt,  and  that  then  Schnaubelt  threw  it,  Mr.  Fowler's 
position  is  a  sound  one.  Sound  also  is  the  position  taken  by 
"  O,"  that  the  convictions  were  secured  by  a  trick  of  the  de- 
tectives. Sound  also  is  my  own  position,  that  the  convictions 
would  have  been  impossible  without  a  packed  jury. 

But,  sound  as  all  these  positions  are,  what  do  they  amount 
to  ?  Something,  perhaps,  as  so  many  instances  of  the  infer- 
nalisms  practised  by  the  State  ;  but  nothing  more.  If  urged 
in  the  hope  that  the  State  will  ever  do  better,  they  are  futile 
in  the  extreme.  Is  not  the  State  an  infernal  institution  ? 
Why  expect  from  it,  then,  anything  but  infernalisms  ? ''Let 
the  people  of  Chicago,"  says  Mr.  Fowler,  "  learn  that  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  the  crime  of  incendiary  speech.  .  .  .  Then 
they  will  no  longer  prosecute  Anarchy  or  persecute  Anarchists, 
but  hunt  up  the  man  who  threw  the  bomb." 

It  is  evident  that  Mr.  Fowler  here  uses  "  the  people  of  Chi- 
cago" as  one  with  the  State,  because  it  is  the  State  which  is 
prosecuting  Anarchy.  But  why  should  the  State  "  hunt  up 
the  man  who  threw  the  bomb  ? "  Why  should  it  do  anything 
in  this  matter  but  prosecute  Anarchy  ?  Is  not  Anarchy  its 
deadliest  foe  ?  Is  it  to  be  expected  that  the  State  will  pay 
heed  to  anything  but  its  own  existence  and  prosperity  ? 

No  whining,  then  !  Let  us  not  complain  of  the  injustice 
practised  by  the  State,  except  we  do  so  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
exhibiting  it  to  the  people  in  its  enormity  and  determining 
them  to  throw  off  its  tyrannical  yoke.  One  of  the  wisest 
comments  that  have  been  made  upon  the  verdict  is  that  of 
Louis  Lingg,  the  maker  of  most  of  the  bombs  so  prevalent  in 
Chicago  and  the  youngest  of  the  convicted  men.  He  is  re- 
ported to  have  said,  after  the  verdict,  something  like  this  : 


METHODS. 


445 


"  There  is  no  reason  to  complain.  Had  I  been  in  the  judge's 
place  and  he  in  mine,  I  would  have  sent  him  to  the  gallows  in- 
side of  twenty-four  hours."  The  attitude  of  this  brave  Bo- 
hemian boy  is  superior  to  that  of  his  older  comrades.  Louis 
Lingg  understands  the  situation.  He  knows  that  Anarchy 
has  challenged  the  State.  He  knows  that  the  State  has 
picked  up  the  gauntlet.  He  knows  that  it  is  a  duel  to  the 
death. 

Both  Lingg  and  his  comrades,  however,  are  fatally  weak  in 
that  they  do  not  really  represent  Anarchy.  They  have  chal- 
lenged in  Anarchy's  name,  but  to  institute  and  secure  one  of 
the  most  revolting  of  Archies, —  the  Archy  of  compulsory 
Communism.  They  propose  to  win  and  uphold  it  by  methods 
the  most  cruel  and  bloody.  The  strength  of  a  righteous 
cause  against  tyranny  lies  in  the  fact  that,  as  long  as  it  re- 
mains itself  innocent  of  offence,  its  persecution  will  bring 
it  popular  sympathy  and  aid.  The  so-called  Anarchists  of 
Chicago,  by  making  their  cause  unrighteous,  by  announcing 
their  readiness  to  commit  any  offences,  however  enormous, 
and  by  standing  on  a  platform  of  Communistic  tyranny,  have 
cast  aside  this  strength,  alienated  this  popular  sympathy  for 
injured  liberty,  and  thrown  it  upon  the  side  of  the  enemy. 
And  what  is  worse,  by  adopting  the  name  of  the  real  friends 
of  Liberty  and  thus  confusing  the  popular  mind  as  to  the 
character  of  Anarchy,  they  perhaps  have  made  it  possible  for 
the  enemy  to  carry  out,  sustained  by  popular  sanction,  what  it 
dared  not  before  attempt, //w//  fear  of  popular  rebellion, — the 
immediate  suppression  of  the  true  Anarchists,  who  pursue 
Liberty  as  an  end  through  Liberty  as  a  means.  If  we  could 
have  gone  on  in  our  own  way,  we  should  have  grown  stronger 
and  stronger,  until  the  State  would  have  had  to  face  the  alter- 
native of  frank  surrender  on  the  one  hand,  or,  on  the  other, 
death  in  the  last  ditch  through  sacrificing  popular  support  by 
assuming  the  offensive  against  innocent  autonomists.  As  it 
is,  the  road  to  our  sure  triumph  will  probably  be  a  much 
harder  one  to  travel. 

But  what  of  the  terrible  predicament,  it  will  be  asked,  in 
which  these  men  who  have  injured  our  cause  now  find  them- 
selves ?  The  answer  is  ready.  They  are  of  the  noble  few  who, 
however  mistaken  as  to  the  way  of  obtaining  it,  desire  uni- 
versal human  comfort  and  for  it  are  willing  to  cast  their  lives 
into  the  balance  ;  we  will  snatch  them,  therefore,  from  the 
jaws  of  the  wild  beast,  if  we  consistently  can.  To  that  end 
everything  shall  be  done  short  of  treason  to  our  cause.  But 
there  we  stop.    If  we  cannot  save  these  men  except  by  re- 


446 


INS!  EAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


sorting  to  their  own  erroneous  methods  and  thus  indefinitely 
postponing  the  objects  we  have  in  view,  then  the  wild  beast 
must  have  its  prey.  Nothing  requires  us  to  sacrifice  that 
which  is  dearest  to  us  to  save  misguided  men  from  conse- 
quences which  we  did  nothing  to  bring  upon  them.  Those 
who  think  this  cruelty  may  make  the  most  of  it.  Call  me 
brute,  call  me  coward,  call  me  "  kid-gloved  Anarchist,"  call 
me  what  you  will,  I  stand  to  my  post.  I  have  yet  to  learn 
that  it  is  any  man's  duty  to  sustain  his  reputation  for  bravery 
at  the  cost  of  his  loyalty  to  truth.  By  my  attitude  upon  that 
day — which,  if  its  coming  was  inevitable,  will  come  the  sooner 
now — when  I  in  turn  shall  find  myself  at  close  quarters  with 
the  wild  beast,  I  consent  to  have  my  courage  judged.  For 
that  day  I  wait.    And  while  I  wait  I  work. 


THE  LESSON  OF  THE  HOUR. 

[Liberty,  September  24,  1887.] 

Unlike  some  of  my  friends,  I  have  never  entertained  any 
hope  that  the  supreme  court  of  Illinois  would  overturn  the 
verdict  against  the  condemned  Socialists  of  Chicago  ;  and  so, 
terrible  as  the  recent  news  from  that  city  is,  I  was  not  disap- 
pointed at  it.  But  my  heart  grows  heavier  as  the  resources  of 
defence  diminish  and  the  day  approaches  on  which  the  brutal 
State  proposes  to  execute  upon  these  rash  but  noble  men  a  base 
and  far  more  rash  revenge.  To  avert  this  act  of  madness  and  the 
unspeakable  terrors  to  which  it  very  possibly  will  lead,  there 
remain  but  two  cards  yet  to  play  in  that  game  of  statutory 
"  justice  "  in  which  there  is  a  percentage  of  chances  in  favor 
of  the  State  that,  if  possessed  by  the  backer  of  the  games  at 
Monte  Carlo,  would  ruin  him  by  driving  all  his  victims  to 
suicide.  One  of  these  cards  is  appeal  to  the  supreme  court 
of  the  United  States  ;  the  other  is  appeal  to  the  governor  of 
Illinois.  Now,  as  experience  teaches  us  that  the  ascending 
scale  of  judicial  "  supremacy  "  generally  registers  a  correspond- 
ing increase  of  stupidity  and  cold-bloodedness,  there  seems 
little  reason  to  expect  more  fairness  from  Washington  than 
Ottawa  ;  and,  unless  Governor  Oglesby  is  far  less  a  tool  of 
capital  than  the  average  Republican  governor  seeking  political 
advancement,  appeal  to  that  quarter  will  be  equally  useless. 
Still  no  stone  should  be  left  unturned.  Let  ample  funds  flow 
in,  in  order  that  all  that  can  be  done  may  be  done,  regardless 


METHODS. 


447 


of  cost  ;  and  though  capital's  faintest  whisper  should  sound 
louder  in  official  ears  than  labor  s  mighty  voice,  let  that  voice 
give  all  its  power  to  protest  loud  and  long.  Only  so  shall  we 
have  no  error  to  regret. 

Above  all,  we  must  not  fail  to  learn  the  lesson  of  these 
troublous  days.  In  all  that  Liberty  has  had  to  say  about  this 
sorry  business  from  the  first,  the  effort  has  been  to  make  plain 
the  folly  of  supposing  the  State  to  be  at  all  concerned  about 
justice.  More  than  ever  am  I  convinced  of  this  after  reading 
the  long  opinion  of  the  Illinois  judges.  Their  very  able  sum- 
mary of  the  testimony  offered  at  the  trial  confirms  me  in  the 
opinion  that  under  the  law  as  it  stands  there  was  a  sufficiency  of 
evidence  to  convict  the  prisoners  of  murder.  For  it  takes  but 
precious  little.  For  aught  that  I  can  see,  the  State's  attorney 
has  it  in  his  power  to  hang  thousands  upon  thousands  of  in- 
nocent citizens  of  Chicago  as  easily  as  he  will  hang  the  seven 
victims  now  under  sentence.  It  is  the  infernal  conspiracy 
law  itself  which  is  responsible  for  this  iniquity;  and  this  law, 
which  passes  almost  without  question,  shows  how  inevitably 
the  State  becomes  an  instrument  of  tyranny.  This  monster 
cannot  be  reformed;  it  must  be  killed.  But  how?  Not  by 
dynamite;  that  will  not  harm  it.  How,  then?  By  light?  It 
thrives  in  the  darkness  of  its  victims'  ignorance;  it  and  they 
must  be  flooded  with  the  light  of  liberty.  If  the  seven  must 
die,  such  must  be  the  lesson  of  their  death. 


CONVICTED  FOR  THEIR  OPINIONS. 

[Liberty*  September  24,  1887.] 

The  judges  of  the  supreme  court  of  Illinois  are  in  accord 
with  the  Communists  of  Illinois  upon  at  least  one  point. 
They  say  in  their  opinion:  u  Law  and  government  cannot  be 
abolished  without  revolution,  bloodshed,  and  murder."  De- 
spite the  sanction  which  the  Communists  thus  receive  from  so 
exalted  a  quarter,  Anarchists  will  continue  to  hold  the  con- 
trary opinion,  and  to  maintain  that  only  under  very  rare  and 
extreme  circumstances  is  bloodshed  essential  to  the  abolition 
of  government,  that  under  other  circumstances  it  can  be  no 
more  than  incidental  to  it,  and  that  it  will  not  be  even  that 
when  there  is  a  little  more  intelligence  abroad  regarding  the 
principle  of  liberty,  which,  revolution  or  no  revolution,  must 
in  any  event  be  the  chief  factor  in  the  abolition  of  govern- 


448 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


ment.  Disregarding,  however,  the  question  whether  the  view 
of  the  judges  and  the  Communists  is  correct  or  not,  it  is 
interesting  to  note  the  connection  in  which  the  former  put  it 
forward.  Answering  the  claim  of  the  counsel  for  the  defence 
that  one  of  the  jurors  was  incompetent  because  he  admitted 
a  prejudice  against  Socialists,  Communists,  and  Anarchists, 
the  judges  say  that  this  is  no  disqualification;  for,  since  Anar- 
chism involves  the  destruction  of  law  and  government,  which 
in  turn  involves  revolution,  bloodshed,  and  murder,  and  since 
Socialism  or  Communism  involves  a  destruction  of  the  right 
of  private  property,  which  in  turn  involves  theft,  "  the  pre- 
judice which  the  ordinary  citizen,  who  looks  at  things  from  a 
practical  standpoint,  would  have  against  Anarchism  and  Com- 
munism would  be  nothing  more  than  a  prejudice  against 
crime."  After  this  judical  declaration,  will  the  jackals  and 
jackasses  of  the  capitalistic  press  dare  to  claim  longer  that  the 
seven  men  under  death  sentence  at  Chicago  were  not  tried 
and  convicted  for  their  opinions  ? 


,     TO  THE  BREACH,  COMRADES! 

[Liberty,  November  19,  1887.] 

Of  the  tragedy  just  enacted  at  Chicago,  what  is  there  to 
say  ?  Of  a  deed  so  foul  perpetrated  upon  men  so  brave,  what 
words  are  not  inadequate  to  paint  the  blackness  on  the  one 
hand  and  the  glory  on  the  other  ?  My  heart  was  never  so  full, 
my  pen  never  so  halt.  As  I  write,  the  dying  shout  of  noble 
Spies  comes  back  to  me  from  the  scaffold  :  "  At  this  moment 
our  silence  is  more  powerful  than  speech."  But,  who  speaks 
or  who  keeps  silent,  all  of  us,  I  am  certain,  will  from  this  time 
forth  face  the  struggle  before  us  with  stouter  hearts  and 
firmer  tread  for  the  examples  that  have  been  set  us  by  our 
murdered  comrades.  If  we  add  to  these  a  clearer  vision,  the 
result  will  not  be  doubtful. 

And  when  it  is  achieved  and  history  shall  begin  to  make  up 
its  verdict,  it  will  be  seen  and  acknowledged  that  the  John 
Browns  of  America's  industrial  revolution  were  hanged  at 
Chicago  on  the  Eleventh  of  November,  1887.  The  labor 
movement  has  had  its  Harper's  Ferry;  when  will  come  the 
emancipation  proclamation  ? 

"  Not  good-by,  but  hail,  brothers  !  "  telegraphed  Josephine 
Tilton  to  Albert  Parsons  on  the  morning  of  the  fatal  day; 


METHODS, 


449 


"  from  the  gallows  trap  the  march  shall  be  taken  up.  I  will 
listen  for  the  beating  of  the  drum." 

The  drum-tap  has  sounded;  the  forlorn  hope  has  charged; 
the  needed  breach  has  been  opened;  myriads  are  falling  into 
line;  if  we  will  but  make  the  most  of  the  opportunity  so  dearly 
purchased,  victory  will  be  ours. 

It  shall  be;  it  must  be  ! 

For,  as  Proudhon  says,  "  like  Nemesis  of  old,  whom  neither 
prayers  nor  threats  could  move,  the  Revolution  advances,  with 
sombre  and  inevitable  tread,  over  the  flowers  with  which  its 
devotees  strew  its  path,  through  the  blood  of  its  champions, 
and  over  the  bodies  of  its  enemies." 


ON  PICKET  DUTY. 

It  is  one  thing  to  admit  the  possibility  of  revolution;  it  is  a 
second  thing  to  point  out  that,  in  the  presence  of  certain  con- 
ditions and  in  the  absence  of  certain  other  conditions,  revolu- 
tion is  inevitable;  it  is  a  third  and  entirely  different  thing  to  so 
vividly  "  foresee  "  revolution  that  vision  in  every  other  direc- 
tion becomes  more  and  more  obscure.  When  a  man's  "  fore- 
sight "  of  revolution  has  arrived  at  this  dazzling  pitch,  it  is 
safe  to  conclude  that  in  his  heart  of  hearts  he  desires  revolu- 
tion, clings  against  his  reason  to  a  superstitious  belief  in  its 
economic  efficacy,  and  would  openly  urge  it  instead  of  "  fore- 
seeing "  it,  did  he  not  know  that  he  could  not  defend  such  a 
course  against  reasoning  men.  Knowing  this,  however,  he 
contents  himself  with  "  foreseeing,"  but  "  foresees  "  so  con- 
stantly and  absorbingly  that  his  prophecies  have  all  the  effect 
of  preaching,  while  enabling  him  to  dodge  the  preacher's  re- 
sponsibility.— Liberty,  July  21,  1888. 

Henry  George's  Standard  makes  a  protest  against  the  atti- 
tude of  the  Chicago  authorities  toward  public  meetings  and 
processions.  It  is  too  late  in  the  day,  Mr.  George,  for  you  to 
pose  as  a  champion  of  freedom  of  speech.  You  once  had  a 
chance  to  vindicate  that  cause  such  as  comes  to  a  man  but 
once  in  a  lifetime,  and  in  the  trial  hour  you  not  only  failed 
the  cause,  but  betrayed  it.  Let  one  of  the  meetings  against 
the  suppression  of  which  you  now  protest  be  held;  let  some 
one  present  throw  a  bomb  and  kill  an  officer;  let  the  speakers 
be  arrested  on  a  charge  of  murder;  let  a  jury  packed  with 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


the  hirelings  of  capital  convict  them;  let  a  judge  sentence 
them  to  be  hanged;  let  the  supreme  court  formally  sanction 
the  whole;  let  a  large  portion  of  the  people,  hounded  on  by  a 
bloodthirsty  and  prostituted  press,  clamor  for  these  men's 
death;  and  let  this  culminate  in  the  middle  of  a  political  cam- 
paign in  which  you  are  running  for  office:  under  these  cir- 
cumstances should  we  not  see  you  do  again  what  you  have 
done  once  already, — declare  that  a  supreme  court  can  do  no 
wrong,  that  in  face  of  its  opinion  you  recant  yours,  that  the 
convicted  men  deserve  to  be  hanged,  and  that  you  will  not 
lift  voice  or  pen  to  save  them  ?  We  have  known  you,  Henry 
George,  in  the  past,  and  we  know  you  for  the  future.  The 
lamp  holds  out  to  burn,  but  for  no  such  vile  sinner  as  your- 
self. In  vain  your  efforts  to  return  to  the  fold.  As  Ingersoll 
says,  "  'Twon't  do." — Liberty,  January  5,  1889. 

Judge  Gary,  of  Chicago,  having  to  pass  upon  a  "  color-line 
case  recently,  rendered  his  decision  in  favor  of  the  rights  of 
the  negro.  But  if  Judge  Gary  had  occupied  the  bench  thirty 
years  ago,  and  John  Brown,  who  was  so  largely  instrumental 
in  accomplishing  the  revolution  by  virtue  of  which  the  black 
man  is  now  able  to  vindicate  his  rights  in  court,  had  been 
brought  before  him  on  a  charge  of  treason,  it  can  scarcely  be 
doubted  that  he  would  have  sentenced  his  prisoner  to  be 
hanged  with  as  little  compunction  as  he  showed  in  condemning 
Spies  and  his  comrades  to  the  gallows  and  with  the  same  shed- 
ding of  crocodile  tears. — Liberty,  January  19,  1889. 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


THE  LESSON  OF  HOMESTEAD. 


[Liberty,  July  23,  1892.] 

Regarding  methods,  one  of  the  truths  that  has  been  most 
steadily  inculcated  by  this  journal  has  been  that  social 
questions  cannot  be  settled  by  force.  Recent  events  have 
only  confirmed  this  view.  But  when  force  comes,  it  some- 
times leads  incidentally  to  the  teaching  of  other  lessons  than 
that  of  its  own  uselessness  and  becomes  thereby  to  that  extent 
useful.  The  appeal  to  force  at  Homestead  affords  a  signal 
example  of  such  incidental  beneficence  ;  for  it  has  forced  the 
capitalistic  papers  of  the  country,  and  notably  the  New  York 
Sun,  to  take  up  a  bold  defence  of  liberty  in  order  to  protect 
property.  Now,  all  that  Anarchism  asks  is  liberty  ;  and  when 
the  enemies  of  liberty  can  find  no  way  of  saving  their  own 
interests  except  by  an  appeal  to  liberty,  Liberty  means  to  make 
a  note  of  it  and  hold  them  to  it. 

Listen,  therefore,  to  the  New  York  Sun  preaching  the  gospel 
of  liberty.  The  passages  here  quoted  are  fair  samples  of  its 
editorial  columns  for  the  last  fortnight  : 

If  a  man  has  labor  to  sell,  he  must  find  some  one  with  money  to  buy 
it,  or  it  is  of  no  more  use  to  him  than  unused  capital  is  to  Mr.  Carnegie. 
If  the  man  does  not  like  the  price  offered,  he  can  reject  it.  If  the  buyer 
does  not  like  the  price  asked,  he  has  the  same  liberty.  Neither  is 
obliged  to  accept  the  bargain,  though  both  are  under  the  same  law  which 
forces  men  to  take  what  they  can  get.  If  the  laborer  does  not  want  the 
work  longer  than  he  contracted  to  give  it,  he  can  throw  it  up,  and  the 
employer  has  the  same  right  to  dispense  with  the  laborer.  The  work- 
man can  choose  his  employer,  and  the  employer  can  choose  his  workmen. 
No  law  can  take  away  that  right  from  either.  The  workman  can  refuse 
to  work  and  the  employer  to  hire.    Such  is  liberty. 


There  are  a  good  many  fools  and  there  are  not  a  few  scoundrels  in  the 
United  States;  but,  even  if  the  scoundrels  could  persuade  the  fools  that 
violence  is  a  friend  of  the  workmen,  the  great  majority  of  the  American 
people,  heartily  despising  the  scoundrels  and  pitying  the  fools,  would 
stand  up  .  .  .  for  the  right  of  every  citizen  to  enjoy  his  own  property 
and  select  his  own  employees;  for  the  right  of  every  citizen  to  work  for 
whom  he  chooses,  and  to  belong  or  not  to  belong  to  a  labor  organization, 
as  he  chooses.  By  whatever  folly  or  violence  these  rights  are  attacked, 
they  are  invincible  while  the  present  idea  of  civilization  lasts. 


453 


454 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


Truth,  every  word  !  Golden  truth  !  Anarchistic  truth  ! 
But  the  bearing  of  this  truth,  as  Cap'n  Cuttle  would  say,  lies 
in  the  application  of  it.  Applied  to  the  conduct  of  the  Home- 
stead strikers,  this  principle  of  equal  liberty,  of  which  the  Sun's 
words  are  an  expression,  instead  of  condemning  it  as  the 
Sun  pretends,  palliates  and  even  excuses  it  ;  for,  before  these 
strikers  violated  the  equal  liberty  of  others,  their  own  right  to 
equality  of  liberty  had  been  wantonly  and  continuously  vio- 
lated. But,  applied  to  the  conduct  of  capitalists  generally,  it 
condemns  it  utterly,  for  the  original  violation  of  liberty  in  this 
matter  is  traceable  directly  to  them. 

This  is  no  wild  assertion,  but  a  sober  statement  of  fact,  as  I 
will  explain.  It  is  not  enough,  however  true,  to  say  that,  "  if  a 
man  has  labor  to  sell,  he  must  find  some  one  with  money  to  buy 
it";  it  is  necessary  to  add  the  much  more  important  truth 
that,  if  a  man  has  labor  to  sell,  he  has  a  right  to  a  free  market 
in  which  to  sell  it, — a  market  in  which  no  one  shall  be  prevented 
by  restrictive  laws  from  honestly  obtaining  the  money  to  buy  it. 
If  the  man  with  labor  to  sell  has  not  this  free  market,  then 
his  liberty  is  violated  and  his  property  virtually  taken  from 
him.  Now,  such  a  market  has  constantly  been  denied,  not 
only  to  the  laborers  at  Homestead,  but  to  the  laborers  of  the 
entire  civilized  world.  And  the  men  who  have  denied  it  are 
the  Andrew  Carnegies.  Capitalists  of  whom  this  Pittsburg 
forge-master  is  a  typical  representative  have  placed  and  kept 
upon  the  statute-books  all  sorts  of  prohibitions  and  taxes  (of 
which  the  customs  tariff  is  among  the  least  harmful)  designed 
to  limit  and  effective  in  limiting  the  number  of  bidders  for  the 
labor  of  those  who  have  labor  to  sell.  If  there  were  no  tariffs 
on  imported  goods  ;  if  titles  to  unoccupied  land  were  not 
recognized  by  the  State  ;  above  all,  if  the  right  to  issue  money 
were  not  vested  in  a  monopoly, — bidders  for  the  labor  of 
Carnegie's  employees  would  become  so  numerous  that  the 
offer  would  soon  equal  the  laborer's  product.  Now,  to  sol- 
emnly tell  these  men  who  are  thus  prevented  by  law  from 
getting  the  wages  which  their  labor  would  command  in  a  free 
market  that  they  have  a  right  to  reject  any  price  that  may  be 
offered  for  their  labor  is  undoubtedly  to  speak  a  formal  truth, 
but  it  is  also  to  utter  a  rotten  commonplace  and  a  cruel  im- 
pertinence. Rather  tell  the  capitalists  that  the  laborer  is 
entitled  to  a  free  market,  and  that  they,  in  denying  it  to  him, 
are  guilty  of  criminal  invasion.  This  would  be  not  only  a 
formal  truth,  but  an  opportune  application  of  a  vital  principle. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  claimed  in  answer  to  this  that  the  laborers, 
being  voters,  are  responsible  for  any  monopolies  that  exist,  and 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


455 


are  thereby  debarred  from  pleading  them  as  an  excuse  for 
violating  the  liberty  of  their  employers.  This  is  only  true  to 
the  extent  to  which  we  may  consider  these  laborers  as  the 
"  fools  "  persuaded  by  the  capitalists  who  are  the  "  scoundrels  " 
that  "violence  (in  the  form  of  enforced  monopoly)  is  a  friend 
of  the  workmen  ";  which  does  not  make  it  less  unbecoming 
in  the  scoundrels  to  rebuke  and  punish  the  fools  for  any 
disastrous  consequences,  that  may  arise  out  of  this  appalling 
combination  of  scoundrelism  and  folly. 

Conspicuous  among  the  scouiKlrels  who  have  upheld  these 
monopolies  is  the  editor  of  the  New  York  Sun.  If  he  tells 
truth  to-day,  he  tells  it  as  the  devil  quotes  scripture, — to  suit 
his  purpose.  He  will  never  consent  to  an  application  of  equal 
liberty  in  the  interest  of  labor,  for  he  belongs  to  the  brother- 
hood of  thieves  who  prey  upon  labor.  If  he  only  would,  we 
Anarchists  would  meet  him  with  cheerful  acquiescence  in  its 
fullest  application  in  the  interest  of  capital.  Let  Carnegie, 
Dana  &  Co.  first  see  to  it  that  every  law  in  violation  of  equal 
liberty  is  removed  from  the  statute-books.  If,  after  that,  any 
laborers  shall  interfere  with  the  rights  of  their  employers,  or 
shall  use  force  upon  inoffensive  "  scabs,"  or  shall  attack  their 
employers'  watchmen,  whether  these  be  Pinkerton  detectives, 
sheriff's  deputies,  or  the  State  militia,  I  pledge  myself  that,  as 
an  Anarchist  and  in  consequence  of  my  Anarchistic  faith,  I 
will  be  among  the  first  to  volunteer  as  a  member  of  a  force  to 
repress  these  disturbers  of  order  and,  if  necessary,  sweep  them 
from'the  earth.  But  while  these  invasive  laws  remain,  I  must 
view  every  forcible  conflict  that  arises  as  the  consequence  of 
an  original  violation  of  liberty  on  the  part  of  the  employing 
classes,  and,  if  any  sweeping  is  done,  may  the  laborers  hold 
the  broom  !  Still,  while  my  sympathies  thus  go  with  the 
under  dog,  I  shall  never  cease  to  proclaim  my  conviction  that 
the  annihilation  of  neither  party  can  secure  justice,  and  that 
the  only  effective  sweeping  will  be  that  which  clears  from  the 
statute-book  every  restriction  of  the  freedom  of  the  market. 


SAVE  LABOR  FROM  ITS  FRIENDS. 

[Liberty,  July  30,  1892.] 

During  the  conflict  now  on  between  capital  and  labor, 
seldom  a  day  passes  without  the  shedding  of  blood.  One  of 
the  most  recent  victims  is  a  prominent  leader  of  the  forces  of 
capital.    The  disaster  that  has  befallen  him  has  called  out  a 


456 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


display  of  grief  on  his  behalf  which,  so  far  as  it  comes  from 
the  camp  of  labor,  seems  to  me  theatrical,  and  in  which  I  cer- 
tainly cannot  share.  Henry  C.  Frick,  like  Charles  A.  Dana, 
the  godfather  of  his  two  weeks-old  son,  is  a  conspicuous  mem- 
ber of  the  brotherhood  of  thieves.  In  joining  this  nefarious 
band  he  took  his  life  in  his  hands,  and  he  knew  it.  It  is  but 
just  to  say  that  he  has  accepted  his  fate  in  the  spirit  of  a  bold 
bandit,  without  a  cry  or  flinch.  His  pluck  excites  my  admi- 
ration, but  his  suffering  moves  me  to  less  pity  than  I  would 
feel  for  the  most  ordinary  cur.  Why  should  I  pity  this  man  ? 
What  have  he  and  I  in  common  ?  Does  he  aspire,  as  I  do,  to 
live  in  a  society  of  mutually  helpful  equals?  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  his  determination  to  live  in  luxury  produced  by  the  toil 
and  suffering  of  men  whose  necks  are  under  his  heel.  He  has 
deliberately  chosen  to  live  on  terms  of  hostility  with  the  greater 
part  of  the  human  race.  When  such  a  man  falls,  my  tears  re- 
fuse to  flow.  I  am  scarcely  sorry  that  he  is  suffering  ;  I  shall 
be  still  less  sorry  if  he  dies. 

And  yet  I  am  very,  very  sorry  that  he  has  been  shot. 

Who  is  his  assailant  ?  I  do  not  know  Alexander  Berkman, 
but  I  believe  that  he  is  a  man  with  whom  I  have  much  in 
common, — much  more,  at  any  rate,  than  with  such  a  man  as 
Frick.  It  is  altogether  likely,  despite  the  slanders  in  the 
newspapers,  as  insincere  in  their  abuse  as  in  their  grief,  that 
he  would  like  to  live  on  terms  of  equality  with  his  fellows, 
doing  his  share  of  work  for  not  more  than  his  share  of  pay. 
There  is  little  reason  to  doubt  that  his  attitude,  toward  the 
human  race  is  one,  not  of  hostility,  but  of  intended  helpful- 
ness. And  yet,  as  one  member  of  the  human  race,  I  freely 
confess  that  I  am  more  desirous  of  being  saved  from  friends 
like  Berkman,  to  whom  my  heart  goes  out,  than  from  enemies 
like  Frick,  from  whom  my  heart  withdraws.  The  worst  enemy 
of  the  human  race  is  folly,  and  men  like  Berkman  are  its  incar- 
nation. It  would  be  comparatively  easy  to  dispose  of  the 
Fricks  if  it  were  not  for  the  Berkmans.  The  latter  are  the 
hope  of  the  former.  The  strength  of  the  Fricks  rests  on  vio- 
lence ;  now  it  is  to  violence  that  the  Berkmans  appeal.  The 
peril  of  the  Fricks  lies  in  the  spreading  of  the  light  ;  violence 
is  the  power  of  darkness.  If  the  revolution  comes  by  violence 
and  in  advance  of  light,  the  old  struggle  will  have  to  be  begun 
anew.  The  hope  of  humanity  lies  in  the  avoidance  of  that 
revolution  by  force  which  the  Berkmans  are  trying  to  precipi- 
tate. 

No  pity  for  Frick,  no  praise  for  Berkman, — such  is  the  atti- 
tude of  Liberty  in  the  present  crisis. 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


457 


IS  FRICK  A  SOLDIER  OF  LIBERTY? 

[Liberty,  August  20,  1892.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

In  vain  have  I  waited  to  hear  from  you  a  word  of  approval  of  the 
efforts  of  a  man  who  lately  has  even  risked  his  life  in  a  fierce  struggle 
for  liberty.  For  even  though  Frick  is  one  of  the  "  Brotherhood  of 
Thieves,"  he  is  now  on  the  side  of  Liberty.  Nor  can  I  see  that  he  is 
any  more  responsible  for  the  existence  of  that  "  Brotherhood  "  than  those 
that  lead  the  contention  against  him.  His  only  crime  is  that  he  is  suc- 
cessful under  present  conditions.  Of  course,  being  an  employer  myself, 
my  opinion  may  possibly  be  warped  ;  but  if  Frick,  in  this  particular  case 
at  least,  has  instituted  a  war  against  the  oppressive  monopoly  of  labor 
unions,  defending  liberty  and  independence,  I  do  not  see  why  Anarchists 
should  condemn  him  therefor.  Let  the  other  side  do  the  same, — i.e*., 
combat  the  iniquities  of  the  present  system  by  removing  obstructions 
instead  of  increasing  their  number.  I  am  sure,  if  the  workmen  should 
insist  upon  the  proper  remedy,  the  inequitable  power  of  capital  would 
soon  be  gone.  If,  however,  these  men  do  not  understand  the  source  of 
this  power,  is  it  fair  to  assume  that  the  Fricks  do  ?  Is  it  true  that  all  the 
workmen  are  fools,  while  all  the  Fricks  are  knaves  ?  And,  on  that 
assumption,  how  is  it  possible  to  help  those  who  resist  the  only  measure 
that  can  help  them, — i.e.,  Liberty? 

Hugo  Bilgram. 

Philadelphia,  August  12,  1892. 

When  that  most  brilliant  of  Catholic  journalists,  Louis 
Veuillot,  was  once  taunted  by  the  Freethinkers  in  power 
because  he,  a  Catholic  and  an  unbeliever  in  liberty,  had  com- 
plained that  the  liberties  of  Catholics  were  denied,  he  thus 
made  answer  to  his  critics  :  "  When  I  am  not  in  power.  I 
demand  of  you  w  ho  are  in  power  all  possible  liberties,  because 
you  believe  in  liberty  ;  when  I  get  into  power,  you  shall  have 
no  liberties  at  all,  because  I  do  not  believe  in  liberty."  Yeu- 
illot  was  in  religion  what  Frick  is  in  political  economy, — a 
believer  in  liberty  for  himself  and  his  immediate  allies,  and  in 
slavery  for  everybody  else.  Neither  the  Veuillots  nor  the  Fricks 
have  any  use  whatever  for  a  society  based  throughout  on  equal 
liberty.  Now  when' a  man  goes  into  a  struggle  in  this  Napo- 
leonic style  and  in  the  course  of  it  gets  a  knock-down  blow,  it 
is  going  too  far  to  ask  an  Anarchist,  a  believer  in  equal  liberty, 
to  sympathize  with  or  approve  this  would-be  despot  simply 
because  at  a  particular  moment  in  his  struggle  for  unequal 
liberty  he  happens  to  defend  a  liberty  which  equal  liberty 
recognizes. 

But,  Mr.  Bilgram  tells  me,  these  union  laborers  are  also  strug- 


45^ 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


gling  for  unequal  liberty  ;  why  then  sympathize  with  them  ? 
True  enough  ;  and  their  claim  to  sympathy  is  greatly  lessened 
by  their  abominable  authoritarianism.  If  it  will  comfort  Mr. 
Bilgram,  I  take  pleasure  in  assuring  him  that,  if  the  time  ever 
comes  when  these  trade-union  employees  are  thoroughly  on 
top  with  their  hands  fastened  upon  their  employers'  throats, 
and  when  in  consequence  the  employees  begin  to  wax  fat  and 
the  employers  to  grow  wan  and  thin,  much  of  my  sympathy 
will  be  transferred  from  the  employees  to  the  employers. 
When  both  parties  to  a  fight  are  wrong,  whatever  sympathy  is 
felt  goes  naturally  to  the  one  that  suffers  most.  Apart  from 
this  friendly  feeling  for  the  under  dog,  however,  there  is  an- 
other consideration  which  mitigates  the  offence  of  the  labor 
authoritarians  as  compared  with  that  of  the  capitalist  authori- 
tarians. The  latter,  for  the  most  part  in  knavery,  set  up 
authority  as  a  weapon  of  aggression  ;  the  former,  for  the  most 
part  in  ignorance  and  following  the  latter's  example,  resort  to 
authority  originally  as  a  weapon  of  defence.  The  difference 
is  considerable. 

Mr.  Bilgram  and  I  agree  almost  to  a  dot  as  to  what  consti- 
tutes the  true  solution  of  the  difficulties  at  Homestead  and  of 
nearly  all  other  labor  difficulties  whatsoever.  I  agree  with  him 
too  that,  if  the  workmen  knew  the  remedy,  they  could  apply 
it  very  quickly  and  effectively.  But  I  do  not  think  that  the 
ignorance  of  the  workmen  implies  a  similar  and  equal  igno- 
rance on  the  part  of  the  employers.  For  one  thing,  the  em- 
ployers, as  a  rule,  are  men  of  superior  education  and  intellect. 
And  for  another  thing,  the  creators  of  a  scheme  of  aggression 
are  much  less  likely  to  be  innocent  of  evil  intent  than  the 
victims.  To  be  sure,  there  are  many  exceptions,  and  I  have 
said  nothing  to  the  contrary.  I  am  just  as  certain,  for 
instance,  that  the  employer,  Hugo  Bilgram,  is  not  a  knave  as 
I  am  that  Dana  and  Frick  are  knaves.  If  there  were  no  such 
exceptions,  then,  as  Mr.  Bilgram  says,  the  situation  would  be 
hopeless.  It  is  on  these  exceptions  that  my  hope  rests.  All 
the  employers  are  not  knaves,  and  all  the  workmen  are  not 
such  fools  that  they  cannot  acquire  wisdom  ;  and  because  of 
these  two  facts  I  see  Light  and  Liberty  ahead. 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


459 


SHALL  STRIKERS  BE  COURT-MARTIALLED  ? 

[Liberty^  August  25,  1883.] 

Of  the  multitude  of  novel  and  absurd  and  monstrous  sug- 
gestions called  forth  from  the  newspapers  by  the  telegraphers' 
strike,  none  have  equalled  in  novelty  and  absurdity  and  mon- 
strosity the  sober  proposal  of  the  editor  of  the  New  York 
Nation,  that  unsentimental  being  who  prides  himself  on  his  hard 
head,  that  hereafter  any  and  all  employees  of  telegraph  com- 
panies, railroad  companies,  and  the  post-office  department  who 
may  see  fit  to  strike  work  without  first  getting  the  consent  of 
their  employers  be  treated  as  are  soldiers  who  desert  or  decline 
to  obey  the  commands  of  their  superior  officers  ;  in  other 
words  (we  suppose,  though  the  Nation  does  not  use  these 
other  words),  that  they  may  be  summarily  court-martialled  and 
shot.  The  readers  of  Liberty  not  being  noted  for  their 
credulity,  some  of  them  may  refuse  to  believe  that  a  civilized 
journal,  especially  one  which  claims  to  be  of  "the  highest 
order"  and  to  represent  "  the  best  thought  of  the  country  and 
time,"  has  been  guilty  of  uttering  such  a  proposition  ;  there- 
fore we  print  below  an  extract  from  a  leader  which  appeared 
in  the  Nation  of  July  19,  and  defy  any  one  to  gather  any 
other  practical  meaning  from  it  than  that  which  we  have 
stated. 

The  truth  is  that  a  society  like  ours,  and  like  that  of  all  commercial 
nations,  has  become  so  dependent  on  the  post-office,  the  railroads,  and  the 
telegraph,  that  they  may  be  said  to  stand  to  it  in  the  relation  of  the 
nerves  to  the  human  body.  The  loss  even  for  a  week  of  any  one  of  them 
means  partial  paralysis.  The  loss  of  all  three  would  mean  a  total  depri- 
vation, for  a  longer  or  shorter  period,  of  nearly  everything  which  the  com- 
munity most  values.  It  would  mean  a  suspension  of  business  and  social 
relations  equal  to  that  caused  by  a  hostile  invasion,  barring  the  terror 
and  bloodshed.  It  is  consequently  something  to  which  no  country  will 
long  allow  itself  to  remain  exposed.  It  cannot  allow  strikes  of  employees 
in  these  great  public  services,  any  more  than  it  can  allow  the  corpora- 
tions themselves  to  refuse  to  carry  on  their  business  as  a  means  of  ex- 
tracting what  they  think  fair  rates  of  transportation.  No  Legislature 
would  permit  this,  and  one  or  two  more  experiences  like  the  railroad 
strike  will  cause  every  Legislature  to  take  measures  against  the  other. 
Telegraphers,  railroad  men,  post-office  clerks,  and  policemen  fill  places 
in  modern  society  very  like  that  of  soldiers.  In  fact,  they  together  do 
for  society  what  soldiers  used  to  do.  They  enable  every  man  to  come 
and  go  freely  on  his  lawful  occasions,  and  transact  his  lawful  business 
without  let  or  hinderance. 


460 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


During  the  rebellion,  when  all  of  us,  except  the  much- 
abused  "  copperheads,"  temporarily  lost  control  of  our  reason- 
ing faculties  (we  dare  say  that  even  the  editor  of  the  Nation  at 
that  time  forgot  himself  and  became  sentimental  for  once),  we 
got  very  angry  with  Carlyle  for  patly  putting  the  Ameri- 
can Iliad  in  a  nutshell  and  epigrammatically  establishing  the 
substantial  similarity  between  the  condition  of  slave  labor  at 
the  South  and  that  of  so-called  "  free  "  labor  at  the  North. 
England's  blunt  old  sham-hater  was  answered  with  much  bois- 
terous declamation  about  "freedom  of  contract,"  and  his  at- 
tention was  proudly  called  to  the  fact  that  the  laborer  of  the 
North  could  follow  his  own  sweet  will,  leaving  his  employer 
when  he  saw  fit,  attaching  himself  to  any  other  willing  to  hire 
him,  or,  if  he  preferred,  setting  up  in  business  for  himself  and 
employing  others.  He  was  at  liberty,  it  was  loudly  proclaimed 
by  our  abolitionists  and  free-traders,  to  work  when  he  pleased, 
where  he  pleased,  how  he  pleased,  and  on  what  terms  he 
pleased,  and  no  man  could  say  him  nay.  What  are  we  to 
think,  then,  when  the  chief  newspaper  exponent  of  the  "  free- 
dom of  contract  "  philosophy  deliberately  sacrifices  the  only 
answer  that  it  could  make  to  Carlyle's  indictment  by  propos- 
ing the  introduction  of  a  military  discipline  into  industry, 
which,  in  assimilating  the  laborer  to  the  soldier,  would  make 
him — what  the  soldier  is — a  slave  ?  Think  ?  Simply  this, — 
that  the  hypocritical  thieves  and  tyrants  who  for  years  have 
been  endeavoring  to  make  their  victims  believe  themselves 
freemen  see  that  the  game  is  nearly  up,  and  that  the  time 
is  fast  approaching  when  they  must  take  by  the  horns  the 
bull  of  outraged  industry,  which,  maddened  by  the  discovery 
of  its  hitherto  invisible  chains,  is  making  frantic  efforts  to 
burst  them  it  knows  not  how.  It  is  a  point  gained.  An  enemy 
in  the  open  field  is  less  formidable  than  one  in  ambush. 
When  the  capitalists  shall  be  forced  to  show  their  true  colors, 
the  laborers  will  then  know  against  whom  they  are  fighting. 

Fighting,  did  we  say  ?  Yes.  For  the  laborer  in  these  days 
is  a  soldier,  though  not  in  the  sense  which  the  Nation  meant. 
His  employer  is  not,  as  the  Nation  would  have  it,  his  superior 
officer,  but  simply  a  member  of  an  opposing  army.  The 
whole  industrial  and  commercial  world  is  in  a  state  of  inter- 
necine war,  in  which  the  proletaires  are  massed  on  one  side 
and  the  proprietors  on  the  other.  This  is  the  fact  that  justi- 
fies strikers  in  subjecting  society  to  what  the  Nation  calls  a 
"  partial  paralysis."  It  is  a  war  measure.  The  laborer  sees 
that  he  does  not  get  his  due.  He  knows  that  the  capitalists 
have  been  intrusted  by  society,  through  its  external  represen- 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


461 


tative,  the  State,  with  privileges  which  enable  them  to  control 
production  and  distribution  ;  and  that,  in  abuse  of  these 
privileges,  they  have  seen  to  it  that  the  demand  for  labor 
should  fall  far  below  the  supply,  and  have  then  taken  advan- 
tage of  the  necessities  of  the  laborer  and  reduced  his  wages. 
The  laborer  and  his  fellows,  therefore,  resort  to  the  policy  of 
uniting  in  such  numbers  in  a  refusal  to  work  at  the  reduced 
rate  that  the  demand  for  labor  becomes  very  much  greater 
than  the  supply,  and  then  they  take  advantage  of  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  capitalists  and  society  to  secure  a  restoration  of 
the  old  rate  of  wages,  and  perhaps  an  increase  upon  it.  Be  the 
game  fair  or  foul,  two  can  play  at  it  ;  and  those  who  begin  it 
should  not  complain  when  they  get  the  worst  of  it.  If  society 
objects  to  being  "  paralyzed,"  it  can  very  easily  avoid  it.  All 
it  needs  to  do  is  to  adopt  the  advice  which  Liberty  has  long 
been  offering  it,  and  withdraw  from  the  monopolists  the  privi- 
leges which  it  has  granted  them.  Then,  as  Colonel  William 
B.  Greene  has  shown  in  his  "  Mutual  Banking,"  as  Lysander 
Spooner  has  shown  in  his  works  on  finance,  and  as  Proudhon 
has  shown  in  his  "  Organization  of  Credit,"  capital  will  no 
longer  be  tied  up  by  syndicates,  but  will  become  readily 
available  for  investment  on  easy  terms;  productive  enterprise, 
taking  new  impetus,  will  soon  assume  enormous  proportions  ; 
the  work  to  be  done  will  always  surpass  the  number  of  labor- 
ers to  do  it ;  and,  instead  of  the  employers  being  able  to  say- 
to  the  laborers,  as  the  unsentimental  Nation  would  like  to 
have  them,  u  Take  what  we  offer  you,  or  the  troops  shall  be 
called  out  to  shoot  you  down,"  the  laborers  will  be  able  to  say 
to  their  employers,  "  If  you  desire  our  services,  you  must  give 
us  in  return  an  equivalent  of  their  product," — terms  which  the 
employers  will  be  only  too  glad  to  accept.  Such  is  the  only 
solution  of  the  problem  of  strikes,  such  the  only  way  to  turn 
the  edge  of  Carlyle's  biting  satire. 


CENSUS-TAKING  FATAL  TO  MONOPOLY. 

[Liberty,  July  21,  1888.] 

The  makers  of  party  platforms,  the  writers  of  newspaper 
editorials,  the  pounders  of  pulpit-cushions,  and  the  orators  of 
the  stump,  who  are  just  now  blending  their  voices  in  frantic 
chorus  to  proclaim  the  foreign  origin  of  evil  and  to  advocate 
therefore  the  exclusion  of  the  foreign  element  from  American 


462 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


soil,  should  study  the  figures  compiled  by  Rev.  Frederick 
Howard  Wines  from  the  tenth  census  reports  and  presented 
by  him  to  the  congress  of  the  National  Prison  Association 
lately  held  in  Boston.  Such  of  these  shriekers  as  are  pro- 
vided with  thinkers  may  find  in  these  statistics  food  for 
thought.  From  them  it  appears  that,  though  the  ratio  of 
crime  among  our  foreign-born  population  is  still  very  much 
higher  than  the  ratio  among  our  native  population,  the  former 
ratio,  which  in  1850  was  more  than  five  times  as  high  as  the 
latter,  in  1880  was  less  than  twice  as  high.  And  it  further 
appears  that,  if  crimes  against  person  and  property  are  alone 
considered,  the  two  ratios  stand  almost  exactly  on  a  level,  and 
that  the  ratio  of  foreign-born  criminals  tends  to  exceed  that 
of  native  criminals  in  proportion  as  the  catalogue  of  "crimes" 
is  extended  to  cover  so-called  offences  against  public  morals, 
public  policy,  and  society.  In  other  words,  the  percentage  of 
natives  who  steal,  damage,  burn,  assault,  kidnap,  rape,  and 
kill  is  about  as  large  as  the  percentage  of  foreigners  of  simi- 
larly invasive  tendencies,  and  the  percentage  of  foreign-born 
law-breakers  exceeds  that  of  native  law-breakers  only  because 
the  foreign-born  are  less  disposed  than  the  natives  to  obey 
those  laws  which  say  that  people  shall  not  drink  this  or  eat 
that  or  smoke  the  other ;  that  they  shall  not  love  except 
under  prescribed  forms  and  conditions  ;  that  they  shall  not 
dispose  or  expose  their  persons  except  as  their  rulers  provide ; 
that  they  shall  not  work  or  play  on  Sunday  or  blaspheme  the 
name  of  the  Lord  ;  that  they  shall  not  gamble  or  swear  ;  that 
they  shall  not  sell  certain  articles  at  all,  or  buy  certain  others 
without  paying  a  tax  for  the  privilege  ;  and  that  they  shall  not 
mail,  own,  or  read  any  obscene  literature  except  the  Bible. 
That  is  to  say,  again,  people  who  happen  to  have  been  born  in 
Europe  are  no  more  determined  to  invade  their  fellow-men 
than  are  people  who  happen  to  have  been  born  in  America, 
but  that  the  latter  are  much  more  willing  to  be  invaded  and 
trampled  upon  than  any  other  people  on  earth.  Which  speaks 
very  well,  in  Liberty's  opinion,  for  the  foreigners,  and  makes 
it  important  for  our  own  liberty  and  welfare  to  do  everything 
possible  to  encourage  immigration. 

But,  say  the  shriekers,  these  foreigners  are  Anarchists  and 
Socialists.  Well,  there's  some  truth  in  that ;  as  a  general 
rule,  the  better  people  are,  the  more  Anarchists  and  Socialists 
will  be  found  among  them.  This,  too,  is  a  fact  which  the 
tenth  census  proves.  The  ratio  of  native  criminals  to  native 
population  is  as  1  to  949.  How  about  other  nationalities  ? 
Listen  to  Rev.  Mr.  Wines : 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


463 


From  the  West  Indies,  the  number  of  prisoners  is  I  in  117  of  our  West 
Indian  population;  from  Spain,  1  in  165  of  the  Spaniards  in  this  country; 
of  the  South  Americans,  I  in  197;  of  the  Chinese,  1  in  199;  of  the  Ital- 
ians, 1  in  260;  of  the  Australians,  I  in  306;  of  the  Irish,  1  in  350;  of  the 
Scotch,  1  in  411;  of  the  French,  1  in  433;  of  the  English,  1  in  456;  of  the 
British  Americans,  1  in  590;  of  the  Russians,  1  in  916;  of  the  Germans, 
1  in  949;  of  the  Poles,  1  in  1033;  of  the  Welsh,  1  in  1173;  of  the  Belgi- 
ans, i  in  1195;  of  the  Swiss,  1  in  1231;  of  the  Hollanders,  1  in  1383;  of 
the  Scandinavians,  1  in  1539;  ar>d  of  the  Austrians  (including  the  Hun- 
garians and  Bohemians),  1  in  1936.  The  Hungarians  and  Bohemians 
make  the  best  showing,  in  respect  of  crime,  of  any  nationality;  this  is 
probably  contrary  to  the  popular  opinion,  which  seems  to  have  no  better 
foundation  than  an  unjust  prejudice,  founded  in  ignorance. 

Now,  in  what  class  of  foreigners  in  this  country  do  the 
Anarchists  and  Socialists  figure  most  largely.  Certainly  not 
among  the  Chinese  or  the  Irish  or  the  Cubans  or  the  Span- 
iards or  the  Italians  or  the  Australians  or  the  Scotch  or  the 
French  or  the  English  or  the  Canadians.  But  these  are  the 
only  foreigners  except  the  Russians  who  make  a  poorer  show- 
ing in  point  of  criminality  than  the  native  Americans.  To  find 
in  this  country  any  considerable  number  of  Anarchists  and 
Socialists  of  foreign  birth,  we  must  go  to  the  Russians,  the 
Germans,  the  Poles,  the  Hungarians,  and  the  Bohemians. 
The  statistics  show,  however,  that  the  Russians  are  almost  as 
orderly  as  Americans,  the  Germans  exactly  as  orderly,  the 
Poles  more  orderly,  and  the  Hungarians  and  Bohemians  more 
than  twice  as  orderly. 

Moral:  If  the  defenders  of  privilege  desire  to  exclude  from 
this  country  the  opponents  of  privilege,  they  should  see  to  it 
that  Congress  omits  the  taking  of  the  eleventh  census.  For 
the  eleventh  census,  if  taken,  will  undoubtedly  emphasize  these 
two  lessons  of  the  tenth:  first,  that  foreign  immigration  does 
not  increase  dishonesty  and  violence  among  us,  but  does  in- 
crease the  love  of  liberty;  second,  that  the  population  of  the 
world  is  gradually  dividing  into  two  classes, — Anarchists  and 
criminals. 


ANARCHY  NECESSARILY  ATHEISTIC. 

\_Liberty,  January  9,  1886.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Libe  rty  : 

If  Anarchy,  as  you  advocate  it,  is  the  abolition  of  all  law  and  authority 
except  the  laws  of  self-government  and  self-restraint,  and  you  believe 
that  with  these  laws  of  self  no  man  would  injure  his  neighbor,  how  would 
such  a  condition  of  things,  realizing  the  highest  ideals  of  Socialism  and 


464 


INSTEAD  OF'  A  BOOK. 


negating  all  authority,  differ  from  a  society  governed  by  the  laws  "  thou 
sJialt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  thy  neighbor  as  thyself, " 
and  affirming  the  authority  of  Christ?  (1)  If  there  is  no  real  difference, 
what  use  in  any  negation  ? 

But  again:  If  Anarchy,  as  you  advocate  it,  be  the  very  highest  ideal  of 
Socialism,  do  you  think  it  possible  to  make  so  great  a  transition  as  from 
the  present  condition  of  things  to  that  ideal  state,  except  by  steps  accom- 
plished with  more  or  less  celerity  ?  (2) 

If  not,  why  cannot  all  men  who  desire  to  change  the  present  condition 
of  things  for  a  better  one  form  parts  of  one  great  army,  and  advance  as 
rapidly  as  possible  towards  the  end  ?  If  part  of  the  army  halt  when  cer- 
tain changes  are  effected,  you  are  advanced  with  it  so  far,  and  part  of 
your  work  is  accomplished  any  way,  and  you  have  less  to  do.  (3) 

The  practical  question  is:  what  shall  we  attack  first  with  that  amount 
and  kind  of  force  necessary  to  effect  our  purposes  ?  The  present  system 
must  be  destroyed  in  detail,  and  a  new  one  be  supplied  in  detail.  The 
job  is  too  large  to  accomplish  suddenly  and  at  once. 

Yours  respectfully, 

O.  P.  Lewis. 

Bridgeport,  Conn.,  December  3,  1885. 

(1)  A  society  negating  all  authority  would  differ  from  a 
society  affirming  the  authority  of  Christ  very  much  as  white 
differs  from  black.  Self-government  is  incompatible  with 
government  by  the  law,  "  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God," 
for  the  reason  that  this  law  implies  the  existence  of  God,  and 
God  and  Man  are  enemies.  God,  to  be  God,  must  be  a  gov- 
erning power.  His  government  cannot  be  administered  di- 
rectly by  the  individual,  for  the  individual,  and  through  the 
individual:  if  it  could,  it  would  at  once  obliterate  individuality 
altogether.  Hence  the  government  of  God,  if  administered 
at  all,  must  be  administered  through  his  professed  vicegerents 
on  earth,  the  dignitaries  of  Church  and  State.  How  this  hier- 
archy differs  from  Anarchy  it  is  needless  to  point  out. 

(2)  No. 

(3)  Because  the  great  majority  of  the  men  whose  hearts  are 
filled  with  the  "  desire  to  change  the  present  condition  of 
things  for  a  better  one  "  are  afflicted  with  an  obscurity  of 
mental  vision  which  renders  them  incapable  of  distinguishing 
between  advance  and  retrogression.  Professing  an  aspiration 
for  entire  individual  freedom,  they  aim  to  effect  it  by  enlarg- 
ing the  sphere  of  government  and  restricting  and  restraining 
the  individual  through  all  sorts  of  new  oppressions.  No  clear- 
sighted Anarchist  can  march  with  such  an  army.  The  farther 
he  should  go  with  it,  the  farther  would  he  be  from  his  goal, 
and,  instead  of  having  "  less  to  do,"  he  would  have  more  to 
do  and  more  to  undo.  Whenever  Liberty  hears  of  any  demand 
for  a  real  increase  of  freedom,  it  is  prompt  to  encourage  and 
sustain  it,  no  matter  what  its  source.    It  marches  with  any 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


465 


wing  of  the  army  of  freedom  as  far  as  that  wing  will  go.  But 
it  sternly  refuses  to  right  about  face.  Liberty  hates  Catholicism 
and  loves  Free  Thought;  but,  when  it  finds  Catholicism  advo- 
cating and  Free  Thought  opposing  the  principle  of  voluntaryism 
in  education,  it  sustains  Catholicism  against  Free  Thought. 
Likewise,  when  it  finds  Liberals  and  Socialists  of  all  varieties 
favoring  eight-hour  laws,  government  monopoly  of  money, 
land  nationalization,  protection,  prohibition,  race  proscription, 
State  administration  of  railways,  telegraphs,  mines,  and  facto- 
ries, woman  suffrage,  man  suffrage,  common  schools,  marriage 
laws,  and  compulsory  taxation,  it  brands  them  one  and  all  as 
false  to  the  principle  of  freedom,  refuses  to  follow  them  in 
their  retrogressive  course,  and  keeps  its  own  eyes  and  steps 
carefully  towards  the  front.  It  knows  that  the  only  way  to 
achieve  freedom  is  to  begin  to  take  it.  It  is  an  important 
question,  as  Mr.  Lewis  says,  what  we  shall  attack  first.  On 
this  point  Liberty  has  its  opinion  also.  It  believes  that  the  first 
point  of  attack  should  be  the  power  of  legally  privileged  capi- 
tal to  increase  without  work.  And  as  the  monopoly  of  the 
issue  of  money  is  the  chief  bulwark  of  this  power,  it  turns  its 
heaviest  guns  upon  that.  But  it  is  impossible  to  successfully 
attack  the  money  monopoly  or  any  other  monopoly  or  privi- 
lege, unless  the  general  principle  of  freedom  be  first  estab- 
lished. That  is  the  reason  why  Liberty  makes  this  principle 
its  own  guide  and  its  test  of  the  course  of  others. 


A  FABLE  FOR  MALTHUSIANS. 

[Liberty,  July  31,  1886.] 

Of  all  the  astonishing  arguments  developed  by  the  interest- 
ing Malthusian  discussion  now  in  progress  in  Lucifer  and  Lib- 
erty the  most  singular,  surprising,  and  short-sighted  is  that 
advanced  by  E.  C.  Walker  in  maintaining  the  identity  of  po- 
litical and  domestic  economy  so  far  as  the  problem  of  popula- 
tion is  concerned. 

"  The  prosperity  of  the  whole,"  he  tells  Miss  Kelly,  "  exists 
only  because  of  the  prosperity  of  the  parts." 

"  To  speak  of  domestic  economy,"  he  tells  Mr.  J.  F.  Kelly, 
"  as  though  it  were  something  that  could  be  considered  apart 
from  so-called  national  economy,  is  confusing  and  unautono- 
mistic.  There  can  be  no  1  public  good  '  which  is  secured  at 
the  expense  of  the  individual,  at  the  sacrifice  of  the  private 


466 


INSTEAD  OF   A  BOOK. 


good.  The  1  population  question  '  is  nothing  but  a  question 
of  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom  and  the  consequent  happiness 
or  unhappiness  of  individuals  and  of  families, —  primarily,  of 
course,  of  individuals.  Were  Mr.  Kelly  and  his  confreres  not 
standing  upon  State  Socialistic  ground,  they  would  never  think 
of  advancing  such  a  collectivist  argument.  Should  any  gov- 
ernmentalist  say  to  Mr.  Kelly  that  the  *  public  good  '  required 
so  and  so,  and  that  the  individual  must  waive  his  rights  when 
confronted  with  the  greater  right  of  the  majority,  that  gentle- 
man would  proceed  to  show  his  opponent  that  there  was  no 
such  thing  as  the  '  public  good,'  save  as  it  was  the  aggregation 
of  the  individual  goods,  and  what  was  required  to  augment 
the  \  public  good '  was  to  jealously  preserve  the  rights  and  lib- 
erties of  the  individual." 

This  indicates  the  most  blissful  ignorance  on  Mr.  Walker's 
part  of  the  real  bearing  of  the  point  originally  made  against 
him, — a  point  as  indisputable  as  the  sunlight,  and  which  he  had 
only  to  admit  frankly  and  unreservedly  in  order  to  stop  the 
"  leak  in  the  dykes  that  confined  the  waters  of  anti-Malthusian 
eloquence,"  and  thereby  save  himself  the  necessity  of  counter- 
acting this  leak  by  opening  his  own  flood-gates.  The  point 
referred  to  is  this:  that,  in  consequence  of  the  "iron  law  of 
wages"  which  prevails  wherever  monopoly  prevails,  a  reduc- 
tion of  population  cannot  benefit  the  masses  of  laborers,  and 
hence,  while  monopoly  lives,  can  be  of  little  or  no  value  in 
political  economy,  although,  if  confined  to  a  few  families,  it 
may  benefit  the  families  in  question,  and  therefore  be  good 
domestic  economy;  the  explanation  of  this  being  that  small  fam- 
ilies means  a  reduction  in  the  cost  of  living  for  those  families, 
and  a  reduction  in  the  cost  of  living  for  even  one  family  means, 
under  a  monopolistic  system,  a  reduction  in  the  rate  of  wages 
paid  to  all  laborers.  If  Mr.  WTalker  had  understood  this,  he 
never  would  have  attempted  to  meet  it  with  the  specious  state- 
ment (which  to  all  Anarchists  is  the  merest  truism)  that  the 
public  good  is  only  the  aggregation  of  the  individual  goods. 
Can  he  suppose  that  the  Kellys  and  myself  are  so  stupid  that, 
if  we  believed  that  Malthusianism  would  make  all  individuals 
comfortable  and  happy,  or  would  largely  contribute  to  that 
end,  we  would  not  be  as  ardent  Malthusians  as  himself  ?  Mr. 
Walker  begs  the  question.  He  bases  his  argument  on  an  un- 
proven  assumption  of  the  very  point  which  we  dispute  and 
believe  we  disprove.  The  Kellys  have  expressly  denied  that 
Malthusianism  can  benefit  the  aggregation  of  individuals,  and 
therefore  the  public.  They  have  nowhere  admitted  that  it 
would  benefit  "the  individual;"  they  have  only  admitted  that 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


467 


it  might  benefit  "a  few  individuals;  "  and  between  these  ad- 
missions there  is  a  vast  and  vital  difference. 

Concerning  the  rights  of  the  individual  and  the  majority, 
neither  Mr.  Kelly  nor  Mr.  Walker  would  say  that  "  what  was 
required  to  augment  the  *  public  good '  was  to  jealously  pre- 
serve the  rights  and  liberties  of  "  a  few  individuals  at  the  ex- 
-pense  of  others.  So,  in  the  matter  of  population,  Mr.  Kelly 
does  not  say  that  the  public  welfare  is  to  be  enhanced  by 
reducing  the  size  of  a  few  families  and  thus  making  the  indi- 
viduals belonging  to  them  comfortable  at  the  expense  of  others. 
But  Mr.  Walker  virtually  does  say  so,  and  precisely  there  is 
his  mistake.  Thus  Mr.  Walker's  own  analogy  convicts  him  of 
his  error. 

If  he  can  be  made  to  really  see  that  under  the  present  sys- 
tem small  families  must  benefit  at  the  expense  of  others  if  at  all, 
I  think  he  will  be  obliged  in  honesty  to  abandon  his  position 
that  Malthusianism  is  good  political  economy.  Will  he  excuse 
me,  then,  if  I  try  to  make  this  plain  in  a  rather  simple  way? 

I  will  suppose  A,  B,  C,  etc.,  to  and  including  Y,  to  be  day- 
laborers,  each  having  five  children  and  each  employed  at 
wages  barely  sufficient  to  sustain  such  life  as  they  are  willing 
to  endure  rather  than  resort  to  forcible  revolution  and  expro- 
priation. Z  is  out  of  employment.  He  has  four  children,  and 
sees  the  possibility  of  a  fifth.  Suddenly  a  happy  thought  strikes 
him.  "As  long  as  I  have  only  four  children,  I  can  get  work, 
for  I  can  afford  to  work  for  less  than  Y  with  his  five  children. 
I  will  become  a  Malthusian, — no,  a  Neo-Malthusian, — and 
apply  the  preventive  check."  Counting  the  few  dollars  and 
cents  still  left  in  his  pocket,  he  finds  that  he  can  keep  his 
family  in  bread  for  two  days  longer  and  still  have  enough  left 
to  buy  a  copy  of  Dr.  Foote's  "  Radical  Remedy  in  Social 
Science  "and  a  syringe  of  the  most  improved  pattern.  He 
makes  these  prudential  purchases,  and  presents  them  to  his 
good  wife.  Mrs.  Z's  eyes  fairly  dance  with  delight  at  the  new 
vistas  of  joy  that  open  before  her,  and  I,  for  one,  am  sincerely- 
glad  for  her.  That  night  witnesses  a  renewal  of  the  Zs'  honey- 
moon. The  next  day,  buoyant  and  hopeful,  Z  presents  him- 
self at  the  office  of  Mr.  Gradgrind,' Y's  employer.  "  Y,"  says 
he,  "  works  for  you  at  a  dollar  and  seventy-five  cents  a  day  ; 
I  will  do  the  same  work  at  a  dollar  and  a  half."  "  You're  the 
very  man  I'm  after,"  says  Gradgrind,  rubbing  his  hands  ; 
"come  to  work  to-morrow."  When  Y  puts  on  his  coat  to  go 
home,  he  is  handed  his  envelope  containing  his  pay  and  his 
discharge. 

Y,  who  has  never  been  out  of  work  long  enough  to  read 


468 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


Malthus,  and  to  whom  that  famous  parson's  gospel  would  now 
come  all  too  late,  lies  awake  all  night  discussing  the  dismal 
prospect  with  Mrs.  Y.  Far  from  experiencing  a  second  honey- 
moon, they  begin  to  wish  they  had  never  known  a  first.  "  But 
we  must  live  somehow,"  finally  concludes  Y  ;  "  half  a  loaf  is 
better  than  no  bread  ;  to-morrow  I  will  go  to  Mr.  Gradgrind 
and  offer  to  work  for  a  dollar  and  a  half."  He  carries  out 
his  resolve.  This  time  Gradgrind's  glee  knows  no  bounds  ; 
he  takes  Y  back  into  his  employ,  and  resolves  thereafter  to 
worship  at  the  shrine  of  Parson  Malthus.  That  night  X  finds 
himself  in  Y's  predicament  of  the  night  before.  Time  goes 
on.  Y's  five  children,  not  getting  enough  to  eat,  grow  paler 
md  thinner,  and  finally  the  youngest  and  frailest  is  carried  off 
to  the  cemetery.  The  preventive  check  in  the  Z  family  has 
resulted  in  a  positive  check  in  the  Y  family. 

Meanwhile  there  has  been  no  interruption  of  the  movement 
started  by  Z.  A  fate  similar  to  Y's  has  overtaken  X,  W,  V, 
and  all  their  alphabetical  predecessors,  till  now  A,  most  un- 
fortunate of  all,  finds  himself  thrown  on  a  cold  world  with  five 
starving  children.  What  happens  then  ?  Driven  from  half 
loaf  to  quarter  loaf,  A  tries  to  underbid  Z,  and  that  prudent 
individual,  who  has  enjoyed  a  temporary  prosperity  at  the 
expense  of  his  fellows,  is  at  last  forced  down  again  to  the 
general  level  in  order  to  hold  his  place.  The  net  result  of  his 
Malthusian  experiment  is  that  A  is  out  of  employment  instead 
of  himself,  one  child  has  not  been  born,  twenty-four  have  died 
from  hunger,  wages  have  fallen  to  a  dollar  and  a  half,  and 
Gradgrind,  richer  than  ever,  begins  to  think  that  cranks 
amount  to  something,  and  is  shaking  hands  with  Walker  over 
the  approaching  millennium. 

Ah  !  a  bloody  millennium  it  will  be,  Mr.  Gradgrind,  if  you 
and  Mr.  Walker  keep  on.  Do  you  see  what  A  is  about  ? 
Too  proud  to  go  to  the  poor-house,  too  honest  to  steal,  he 
has  wandered  in  despair  over  to  the  Haymarket  (I  forgot  to 
say  that  Chicago  is  the  scene  of  my  tragedy),  and  there  has 
learned  from  one  Parsons  that  all  wealth  belongs  to  everybody, 
that  each  should  seize  what  he  can,  and  that  he,  A,  and  his 
hungry  children,  with  twenty-'five  cents'  worth  of  dynamite, 
may  live  and  loaf  like  princes  and  Gradgrinds  forever. 
Straightway  some  one  hands  him  a  bomb,  and  he  flings  it  into 
a  squad  of  police.  "What  then?  The  earth  is  but  shivered 
into  impalpable  smoke  by  that  Doom's-thunderpeal  ;  the  sun 
misses  one  of  his  planets  in  space,  and  thenceforth  there  are 
no  eclipses  of  the  moon." 

To  what  stern,  ay  !  to  what  singular  realities  has  my  alle- 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


469 


gory  brought  us  !  A  bloody  revolution,  and  Malthusianism 
to  blame  !  Walker,  the  Malthusian,  sharing  with  Gradgrind, 
the  robber,  the  responsibility  for  Parsons,  the  dynamiter  ! 
Loud  as  Mr.  Walker  may  declaim  against  forcible  revolution 
(and  he  can  do  so  none  too  loud  for  me),  his  voice  is  sounding 
deeper  tones,  which  will  push  the  people  to  it.  I  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  authorities  to  his  incendiary  Malthusian  utter- 
ances. 

Is  it  to  be  inferred,  then,  that  I  discountenance  small 
families  ?  By  no  means.  I  highly  approve  them.  Z's  con- 
duct was  right  and  wise.  He  acted  within  his  right.  And 
his  act  was  perfectly  innocent  in  itself.  It  was  not  his  fault 
that  it  injured  others  ;  it  was  the  fault  of  the  monopolistic 
system  which  shrewdly  manages0  to  keep  the  demand  for 
labor  below  the  supply.  Z  could  not  be  expected  to  damage 
himself  in  order  to  refrain  from  damaging  others,  as  long  as 
his  conduct  was  of  such  a  character  that  it  would  not  have 
damaged  others  except  for  the  existence  of  an  economic  system 
for  which  he  was  in  no  special  sense  to  blame.  Nevertheless 
it  will  not  do  to  wink  out  of  sight  the  fact  that  he  did  damage 
others,  or  to  fail  to  learn  from  it  the  folly  of  supposing  that  any 
reform  is  fundamental  in  politicial  economy  except  the  achieve- 
ment of  Liberty  in  our  industrial  and  commercial  life. 


AUBERON  HERBERT  AND  HIS  WORK. 

[Liberty,  May  23,  1885.] 

Auberon  Herbert,  whose  essay,  "A  Politician  in  Sight  of 
Haven,"  creates  such  an  enthusiasm  for  Liberty  in  the  minds 
of  all  thinking  people  who  read  it,  has  recently  published  still 
another  book  of  similar  purport  and  purpose.  He  calls  it 
"  The  Right  and  Wrong  of  Compulsion  by  the  State  :  A  State- 
ment of  the  Moral  Principles  of  the  Party  of  Individual  Lib- 
erty, and  the  Political  Measures  Founded  Upon  Them."  It 
consists  of  a  series  of  papers  written  for  Joseph  Cowen's 
paper,  the  Newcastle  Chronicle,  supplemented  by  a  letter  to 
the  London  Times  on  the  English  factory  acts.  Dedicated  to 
Mr.  Cowen's  constituents,  "  The  Workmen  of  Tyneside,"  it 
appeals  with  equal  force  to  workmen  the  world  over,  and  their 
welfare  and  their  children's  will  depend  upon  the  readiness 
with  which  they  accept  and  the  bravery  with  which  they  ad- 
here to  its  all-important  counsel.    The  book  is  a  magnificent 


470 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


assault  on  the  majority  idea,  a  searching  exposure  of  the  in- 
herent evil  of  State  systems,  and  a  glorious  assertion  of  the  in- 
estimable benefits  of  voluntary  action  and  free  competition, 
reaching  its  climax  in  the  emphatic  declaration  that  "this 
question  of  power  exercised  by  some  men  over  other  men  is 
the  greatest  of  all  questions,  the  one  that  concerns  the  very 
foundations  of  society,"  upon  the  answer  to  which  "  must  ul- 
timately depend  all  ideas  of  right  and  wrong."  This  is  a 
bold  and,  at  first  sight,  an  astonishing  claim;  but  it  is  a  true 
one,  nevertheless,  and  the  fact  that  Mr.  Herbert  makes  it  so 
confidently  shows  that  he  is  inspired  by  the  same  idea  that 
gave  birth  to  this  journal,  caused  it  to  be  christened  Liberty, 
and  determined  it  to  labor  first  and  foremost  for  Anarchy,  or 
the  Abolition  of  the  State.  • 

This  is  no  fitful  outburst  on  Mr.  Herbert's  part.  He  evi- 
dently has  enlisted  for  a  campaign  which  will  end  only  with 
victory.  The  book  in  question  seems  to  be  the  second  in  a 
series  of  "  Anti-Force  Papers,"  which  promises  to  include  spe- 
cial papers  dealing  more  elaborately,  but  in  the  light  of  the 
same  general  principle,  with  the  matters  of  compulsory  taxa- 
tion, compulsory  education,  land  ownership,  professional  mo- 
nopolies, prohibitory  liquor  laws,  legislation  against  vice,  State 
regulation  of  love  regulations,  etc.,  etc.  I  know  no  more  in- 
spiring spectacle  in  England  than  that  of  this  man  of  excep- 
tionally high  social  position  doing  battle  almost  single-handed 
with  the  giant  monster,  government,  and  showing  in  it  a  men- 
tal rigor  and  vigor  and  a  wealth  of  moral  fervor  rarely  equalled 
in  any  cause.  Its  only  parallel  at  the  present  day  is  to  be 
found  in  the  splendid  attitude  of  Mr.  Ruskin,  whose  earnest 
eloquence  in  behalf  of  economic  equity  rivals  Mr.  Herbert's 
in  behalf  of  individual  liberty. 

This  thought  leads  to  the  other,  that  each  of  these  men  lacks 
the  truth  that  the  other  possesses.  Mr.  Ruskin  sees  very 
clearly  the  economic  principle  which  makes  all  forms  of  usury 
unrighteous  and  wages  for  work  the  only  true  method  of  sus- 
taining life,  but  he  never  perceives  for  a  moment  that  indi- 
vidual human  beings  have  sovereign  rights  over  themselves. 
Mr.  Herbert  proves  beyond  question  that  the  government  of 
man  by  man  is  utterly  without  justification,  but  is  quite  igno- 
rant of  the  fact  that  interest,  rent,  and  profits  will  find  no 
place  in  the  perfect  economic  or.der.  Mr.  Ruskin's  error  is  by 
far  the  more  serious  of  the  two,  because  the  realization  of  Mr. 
Herbert's  ideas  would  inevitably  result  in  the  equity  that  Mr. 
Ruskin  sees,  whereas  this  equity  can  never  be  achieved  for 
any  length  of  time  without  an  at  least  partial  fulfilment  of  in- 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


471 


dividual  liberty.  Nevertheless  it  cannot  be  gainsaid  that  Mr. 
Herbert's  failure  to  see  the  economic  results  of  his  ideas  con- 
siderably impairs  his  power  of  carrying  them  home  to  men's 
hearts.  Unfortunately,  there  are  many  people  whom  the  most 
perfect  deductive  reasoning  fails  to  convince.  The  beauty  of 
a  great  principle  and  its  harmonizing  influence  wherever  it 
touches  they  are  unable  to  appreciate.  They  can  only  see 
certain  great  and  manifest  wrongs,  and  they  demand  that  these 
shall  be  righted.  Unless  they  are  clearly  shown  the  connec- 
tion between  these  wrongs  and  their  real  causes,  they  are 
almost  sure  to  associate  them  with  imaginary  causes  and  to  try 
the  most  futile  and  sometimes  disastrous  remedies.  Now,  the 
one  great  wrong  that  these  people  see  to-day  is  the  fact  that 
industry  and  poverty  commonly  go  hand  in  hand  and  are 
associated  in  the  same  persons,  and  the  one  thing  that  they 
are  determined  upon,  regardless  of  everything  else  whatsoever, 
is  that  hereafter  those  who  do  the  work  of  this  world  shall 
enjoy  the  wealth  of  this  world.  It  is  a  righteous  determina- 
tion, and  in  it  is  to  be  found  the  true  significance  of  the 
State-Socialistic  movement  which  Mr.  Herbert  very  properly 
condemns  and  yet  only  half  understands.  To  meet  it  is  the 
first  necessity  incumbent  upon  the  friends  of  Liberty.  It  is 
sure  that  the  workers  can  never  permanently  secure  themselves 
in  the  control  of  their  products  except  through  the  method  of 
Liberty;  but  it  is  almost  equally  sure  that,  unless  they  are 
shown  what  Liberty  will  do  for  them  in  this  respect,  they  will 
try  every  other  method  before  they  try  Liberty.  The  neces- 
sity of  showing  them  this  Mr.  Herbert,  to  be  sure,  dimly  sees, 
but,  the  light  not  having  dawned  on  himself,  he  cannot  show 
it  to  others.  He  has  to  content  himself,  therefore,  with  such 
inadequate,  unscientific,  and  partially  charitable  proposals  as 
the  formation  of  voluntary  associations  to  furnish  work  to  the 
unemployed.  The  working  people  will  never  thus  be  satisfied, 
and  they  ought  not  to  be. 

But  Mr.  Herbert  can  satisfy  them  if  he  can  convince  them 
of  all  that  is  implied  in  his  advocacy  of  "  complete  free  trade 
in  all  things."  To  many  special  phases  of  this  free  trade  he 
does  call  marked  attention,  but  never,  I  believe,  to  the  most 
important  of  all,  free  trade  in  banking.  If  he  would  only  dwell 
upon  the  evils  of  the  money-issuing  monopoly  and  emphasize 
with  his  great  power  the  fact  that  competition,  in  this  as  in 
other  matters,  would  give  us  all  that  is  needed  of  the  best 
possible  article  at  the  lowest  possible  price,  thereby  steadily 
reducing  interest  and  rent  to  zero,  putting  capital  within  the 
comfortable  reach  of  all  deserving  and  enterprising  people, 


472 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


and  causing  the  greatest  liberation  on  record  of  heretofore 
restricted  energies,  the  laborers  might  then  begin  to  see  that 
here  lies  their  only  hope  ;  that  Liberty,  after  all,  and  not  Gov- 
ernment, is  to  be  their  saviour  ;  that  their  first  duty  is  to 
abolish  the  credit  monopoly  and  let  credit  organize  itself;  that 
then  they  will  have  to  ask  nobody  for  work,  but  everybody 
will  be  asking  work  of  them  ;  and  that  then,  instead  of  having 
to  take  whatever  pittance  they  can  get,  they  will  be  in  a  posi- 
tion to  exact  wages  equivalent  to  their  product,  under  which 
condition  of  things  the  reign  of  justice  will  be  upon  us  and 
labor  will  have  its  own.  Then  Mr.  Herbert's  work  for  Liberty 
will  no  longer  be  a  struggle,  but  an  unmixed  pleasure.  He 
will  no  longer  have  to  breast  the  current  by  urging  workmen 
to  self-denial  ;  he  can  successfully  appeal  to  their  self-interest, 
the  tide  will  turn,  and  he  will  be  borne  onward  with  it  to  the 
ends  that  he  desires. 


SOLUTIONS  OF  THE  LABOR  PROBLEM. 

[Liberty,  September  12,  1891.] 

Apropos  of  Labor  Day,  the  Boston  Herald  printed  in  its 
issue  of  September  6  a  collection  of  proposed  solutions  of  the 
labor  problem,  received  in  response  to  a  question  which  it  had 
invited  certain  students  and  labor  leaders  to  answer.  The 
question  was  this  :  "  How  is  a  just  distribution  of  the  products 
of  labor  to  be  obtained  ?  "  The  answers  were  from  two  hun- 
dred to  five  hundred  words  in  length  ;  below  I  give  the  essence 
of  each  : 

George  E.  McNeill,  general  organizer  of  the  Federation  of 
Labor  : — By  a  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor. 

Edward  Atkinson,  political  economist  : — If  laborers  think 
themselves  inadequately  rewarded,  they  should  work  for  them- 
selves.   The  "  scabs  "  should  have  unions  of  their  own. 

Edward  S.  Huntington,  secretary  of  the  First  Nationalist 
Club  : — By  the  organization  of  an  all-inclusive  trust  by  the 
laborers. 

Albert  Ross  (Lynn  Boyd  Porter),  novelist  : — No  individuals 
can  justly  distribute  the  products  of  other  men's  labor. 
Hence  the  State  must  do  it. 

Charles  E.  Bowers,  Nationalist  : — By  national  control  and 
management  of  industries.  , 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


473 


H.  R.  Legate,  leader  of  the  Third  Party  : — By  public  own- 
ership of  the  means  of  production  and  distribution. 

Henry  Abrahams,  secretary  of  the  Boston  Central  Labor 
Union  : — Organization  of  trades  ;  reduction  of  the  hours  of 
labor  ;  co-operation. 

William  H.  Sayward,  secretary  of  the  National  Association 
of  Builders  : — Absolute  justice  in  distribution  is  unattainable. 
Improvement  can  be  made  by  joint  consideration  and  united 
action  of  laborers  and  employers. 

M.  J.  Bishop,  State  worthy  foreman,  K.  of  L. : — By  organiz- 
ing and  educating  the  people  to  demand  control  of  the  natural 
monopolies  and  the  transportation  of  intelligence,  passengers, 
and  freight. 

P.  C.  Kelly,  secretary-treasurer  of  the  State  Assembly  and 
D.  A.  30,  K.  of  L.: — By  the  nationalization  of  mines,  rail- 
roads, telegraphs,  telephones,  and  the  levying  of  income  taxes. 

W.  J.  Shields,  ex-president  of  the  United  Brotherhood  of 
Carpenters  and  Joiners:  —  The  producers  should  free  them- 
selves from  private  control  of  all  natural  monopolies,  and  sub- 
stitute government  control  and  management. 

George  D.  Moulton,  Socialist : — By  Socialism,  to  be  reached 
through  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor  and  a  gradual  increase 
of  wages. 

Harry  Lloyd,  president  of  the  Carpenters'  District  Coun- 
cil : — By  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor,  destruction  of  the 
wage  system,  co-operation,  profit-sharing,  and  government 
ownership  of  land,  mines,  and  patents. 

Some  of  the  solutions  proposed  in  the  foregoing  answers 
are  as  inadequate  as  Mrs.  Partington's  broom,  others  were 
buried  by  their  authors  in  a  flow  of  sentimentalism,  and  still 
others  were  presented  so  unsystematically  and  unscientifically 
that  they  could  not  influence  reasoning  minds. 

Besides  these,  however,  there  were  two  answers  that  were 
analytical,  that  showed  a  true  conception  of  the  requirements 
of  the  problem,  and  that  made  a  systematic  attempt  to  meet 
them.  I  have  no  bump  of  modesty,  and  so  am  able  to  say 
unblushingly  that  one  of  these  was  written  by  Edward  Bel- 
lamy and  the  other  by  myself.    I  give  them  in  full  : 

Edward  Bellamy,  author  of  "  Looking  Backward  "  and  founder  of  Na- 
tionalism : — Workmen  will  not  receive  a  just  proportion  of  the  product  of 
their  labor  until  they  receive  the  whole  product.  In  order  to  receive  the 
whole  product,  they  must  receive  the  profits  which  now  go  to  the  employ- 
ers, in  addition  to  their  wages.  In  order  to  receive  the  profits  which  now 
go  to  the  employers,  they  must  become  their  own  employers.  The  only 
way  by  which  they  can  become  their  own  employers  is  to  assume  through 
their  salaried  agents  the  conduct  of  industry  as  they  have  already  (in  this 


474 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


country)  assumed  the  conduct  of  political  affairs.  The  president,  gov- 
ernor, and  mayor  do  not  make  a  profit  on  the  business  of  the  nation, 
State,  or  city,  as  employers  do  upon  the  industries  which  they  manage. 
These  and  all  other  public  officials  receive  salaries  only,  as  agents,  the 
business  being  conducted  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  as  the  principals. 

There  is  no  more  sense  in  permitting  the  industrial  affairs  of  this  country 
to  be  run  for  private  profit  than  there  would  be  in  permitting  their  po- 
litical affairs  to  be  so  exploited.  Our  industries  are  just  as  properly  pub- 
lic business  as  our  politics,  and  a  great  deal  more  important  to  us  all. 

As  soon  as  the  people  wake  up  to  the  realization  of  this  fact,  there  will 
be  no  labor  question  left.  There  will  be  no  ground  left  for  a  dispute  be- 
tween workmen  and  capitalists,  for  every  one  will  be  at  one  and  the  same 
time  employer  and  employee. 

Benjamin  R.  Tucker,  Anarchist  : — A  just  distribution  of  the  products 
of  labor  is  to  be  obtained  by  destroying  all  sources  of  income  except 
labor.  These  sources  may  be  summed  up  in  one  word, — usury  ;  and  the 
three  principal  forms  of  usury  are  interest,  rent,  and  profit.  These  all 
rest  upon  legal  privilege  and  monopoly,  and  the  way  to  destroy  them  is 
to  destroy  legal  privilege  and  monopoly.  The  worst  monopoly  of  all  is 
that  of  the  power  to  issue  money,  which  power  is  now  restricted  to  the 
holders  of  a  certain  kind  of  property, — government  bonds  and  gold  and 
silver.  If  the  holders  of  all  kinds  of  property  were  equally  privileged  to 
issue  money,  not  as  legal  tender,  but  acceptable  only  on  its  merits,  compe- 
tition would  reduce  the  rate  of  discount,  and  therefore  of  interest  on  capi- 
tal, to  the  mere  cost  of  banking,  which  is  much  less  than  one  per  cent. 
And  even  this  percentage  would  not  be  interest,  properly  speaking,  but 
simply  payment  for  the  labor  and  expense  of  banking.  When  money 
could  be  had  at  such  a  rate  and  capital  bought  with  it,  of  course  no  one 
would  borrow  capital  at  a  higher  rate.  Free  competition  in  banking  would 
thus  abolish  interest,  all  rent  except  ground  rent,  and  all  profit  on  mer- 
chandise not  enjoying  the  benefit  of  some  special  monopoly. 

In  the  absence  of  monopoly  of  any  kind,  whatever  the  merchant 
"  makes"  out  of  his  business  is  not  strictly  profit,  but  the  wages  of  mer- 
cantile labor,  determined  by  competition.  This  wage  is  what  will  remain 
after  the  abolition  of  the  money  monopoly,  of  all  tariffs  and  taxes  on  in- 
dustry and  trade,  and  of  all  patents  and  copyrights. 

That  form  of  usury  known  as  ground  rent  rests  on  land  monopoly; 
that  is,  on  government  protection  of  land  titles  not  based  on  personal  oc- 
cupancy and  use.  If  this  protection  were  withdrawn,  landlordism  would 
disappear,  and  ground  rent  would  thereafter  exist  no  longer  in  its  mo- 
nopolistic form,  but  only  in  its  economic  form  ;  in  other  words,  the  only 
existing  rent  would  be  the  advantage  accruing  to  the  owner  and  occupier 
from  superiority  of  soil  or  site. 

The  growing  diversity  of  industry,  coupled  with  the  greater  mobility  that 
will  be  enjoyed  by  labor  as  soon  as  greater  mobility  is  given  to  capital  by 
the  abolition  of  the  monopolies,  will  have  a  strong  and  constant  tendency 
to  neutralize  the  existing  inequalities  of  soil  and  site,  and  thus  economic 
rent  will  gradually  approach  its  vanishing  point.  Thus  the  whole  ground 
is  covered,  and  all  forms  of  usury  are  abolished.  All  the  drains  upon 
labor  being  stopped,  labor  will  be  left  in  possession  of  its  product,  which 
is  the  solution  of  the  problem.  This  solution  is  that  which  Anarchism 
offers. 

The  contrast  between  the  robust  uprightness  and  straight- 
forwardness of  these  two  answers  and  the  flaccid  incoherence 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


475 


of  most  of  the  others  emphasizes  my  constant  contention  that 
the  labor  problem  is  to  be  settled  between  extreme  State  So- 
cialism and  extreme  Anarchism,  and  that  the  struggle  will 
become  clear  and  direct  in  proportion  as  all  compromises  dis- 
appear and  leave  an  open  field.  When  this  struggle  comes, 
the  weak  point  in  Mr.  Bellamy's  position  will  be  located.  1 
point  it  out  in  advance.  It  lies  in  his  enormous  assumptions 
that  laborers,  in  order  to  receive  the  profits  which  now  go  to 
the  employers,  must  become  their  own  employers,  and  that  the 
only  way  by  which  they  can  do  this  is  to  assume  through  their 
salaried  agents  the  conduct  of  industry.  The  Anarchistic  so- 
lution shows  that  there  is  no  such  must  and  no  such  only. 
When  interest,  rent,  and  profit  disappear  under  the  influence 
of  free  money,  free  land,  and  free  trade,  it  will  make  no  dif- 
ference whether  men  work  for  themselves,  or  are  employed, 
or  employ  others.  In  any  case  they  can  get  nothing  but 
that  wage  for  their  labor  which  free  competition  determines. 
Therefore  they  need  not  become  their  own  employers.  Per- 
haps, however,  they  will  prefer  to  do  so.  But  in  that  case 
they  need  not  assume  the  conduct  of  industry  through  their 
salaried  agents.  There  is  another  way.  Any  of  them  that 
choose  will  be  enabled  through  mutual  banking  to  secure 
means  of  production  whereby  to  conduct  whatever  industry 
they  desire.  This  other  way,  being  the  way  of  liberty,  is  the 
better  way,  and  is  destined  to  triumph  over  Mr.  Bellamy's 
way,  which  is  the  way  of  authority  and  coercion. 

I  have  reserved  to  the  last "  the  only  remaining  answer 
among  those  printed  in  the  Herald,  that  of  Frank  K.  Foster, 
editor  of  the  Labor  Leader.  This,  too,  I  give  in  full,  because 
of  its  significance. 

The  prime  factors  making  toward  the  unjust  distribution  of  the  products 
of  labor  are  profits,  rent,  and  interest.  In  his  direct  relation  to  the  em- 
ployer, or  buyer  of  labor, — not  necessarily  a  capitalist, — the  laborer  has  a 
remedy  in  every  agency  that  gives  him  greater  equality  of  bargaining 
power.  The  scope  of  this  remedy  is  limited  by  the  margin  of  profit  on 
the  joint  product  of  the  laborer  and  the  "  captains  of  industry."  In  this 
class  of  agencies  are  to  be  reckoned  the  trades  unions,  and  their  influences 
of  agitation  and  education.  Incidentally,  the  problems  of  immigration,  of 
mobility  of  labor,  and  of  the  unwise  and  selfish  competition  (between  the 
laborers  themselves)  for  employment,  are  allied  to  this  branch  of  the 
subject.  Broadly  speaking,  in  the  field  of  adult  labor,  the  principle  of 
free  association  may  be  trusted  to  supply  a  remedy  that  shall  adjust  the 
supply  of  labor  to  meet  the  demand,  and,  by  raising  wages  and  regulating 
conditions,  obtain  for  the  laborer  his  just  share  of  the  profits  of  produc- 
tion. As  wage  earners,  it  is  with  this  economic  side  of  the  question  we 
have  mainly  to  do. 

The  problems  of  rent  and  interest  are  not,  in  the  same  sense,  class 


476 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


questions,  for  they  affect  the  man  who  buys  and  the  man  who  sells 
the  commodity  of  labor.  The  wage  earner,  as  a  unit  in  the  productive 
social  system,  is  concerned,  however,  in  the  promotion  of  those  reforms 
which  will  lessen  the  power  of  monopoly  in  land  and  money,  and  thus 
make  a  larger  margin  of  profit  upon  production  to  be  divided  between 
himself  and  employer. 

The  taxation  of  land  held  for  speculative  purposes  to  its  full  market 
value,  the  abolition  of  special  privileges  granted  by  the  State  to  bank- 
ers, and  the  repeal  of  tariff  laws  taxing  the  many  for  the  enrichment  of 
the  few,  are  among  the  more  important  remedies  of  this  class. 

Absolutely  just  distribution  of  the  products  of  labor  and  absolute 
freedom  from  oppression  by  the  possessors  of  power  and  pelf  is  only  to 
be  looked  for  in  an  ideal  social  state  made  up  of  creatures  vastly  different 
from  the  race  in  whose  veins  circulates  the  blood  of  old  Adam. 

It  is  surely  a  reasonable  hope  that  justice  and  liberty  may  develop  with 
the  increasing  years,  and  to  my  mind  this  development  will  come,  not  by 
legislative  enactment,  but  through  tbe  broader  avenue  of  the  education 
and  upbuilding  of  the  individuals  composing  our  complex  civilization. 

This  remarkable  utterance,  in  everything  except  its  senti- 
mental remark  about  "  unwise  and  selfish  competition  "  and 
its  inconsistent  adherence  to  the  single-tax  fallacy,  is  thor- 
oughly Anarchistic,  and  shows  that  its  author,  not  long  ago  a 
stanch  State  Socialist,  has  already  accepted  the  "  better  way  " 
of  liberty. 


KARL  MARX  AS  FRIEND  AND  FOE. 

[Liberty,  April  14,  1883.] 

By  the  death  of  Karl  Marx  the  cause  of  labor  has  lost  one 
of  the  most  faithful  friends  it  ever  had.  Liberty  says  thus 
much  in  hearty  tribute  to  the  sincerity  and  hearty  steadfast- 
ness of  the  man  who,  perhaps  to  a  greater  extent  than  any 
other,  represented,  by  nature  and  by  doctrine,  the  principle  of 
authority  which  we  live  to  combat.  Anarchism  knew  in  him 
its  bitterest  enemy,  and  yet  every  Anarchist  must  hold  his 
memory  in  respect.  Strangely  mingled  feelings  of  admiration 
and  abhorrence  are  simultaneously  inspired  in  us  by  contem- 
plation of  this  great  man's  career.  Toward  the  two  funda- 
mental principles  of  the  revolution  of  to-day  he  occupied  an 
exactly  contradictory  attitude.  Intense  as  was  his  love  of 
equality,  no  less  so  was  his  hatred  of  liberty.  The  former 
found  expression  in  one  of  the  most  masterly  expositions  of 
the  infamous  nature  and  office  of  capital  ever  put  into  print  ; 
the  latter  in  a  sweeping  scheme  of  State  supremacy  and  ab- 
sorption, involving  a  practical  annihilation  of  the  individual. 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


477 


The  enormous  service  done  by  the  one  was  well-nigh  neutral- 
ized by  the  injurious  effects  resulting  from  his  advocacy  of 
the  other.  For  Karl  Marx,  the  e'galitairc,  we  feel  the  pro- 
foundest  respect  ;  as  for  Karl  Marx,  the  autoritaire,  we  must 
consider  him  an  enemy.  Liberty  said  as  much  in  its  first 
issue,  and  sees  no  reason  to  change  its  mind.  He  was  an 
honest  man,  a  strong  man,  a  humanitarian,  and  the  promul- 
gator of  much  vitally  important  truth,  but  on  the  most  vital 
question  of  politics  and  economy  he  was  persistently  and  irre- 
trievably mistaken. 

We  cannot,  then,  join  in  the  thoughtless,  indiscreet,  and  in- 
discriminate laudation  of  his  memory  indulged  in  so  generally 
by  the  labor  press  and  on  the  labor  platform.  Perhaps,  how- 
ever, we  might  pass  it  by  without  protest,  did  it  not  involve  in- 
justice and  ingratitude  to  other  and  greater  men.  The  extrava- 
gant claim  of  precedence  as  a  radical  political  economist  put 
forward  for  Karl  Marx  by  his  friends  must  not  be  allowed  to 
overshadow  the  work  of  his  superiors.  We  give  an  instance 
of  this  claim,  taken  from  the  resolutions  passed  unanimously 
by  the  great  Cooper  Union  meeting  held  in  honor  of  Marx  : 
"  In  the  field  of  economic  social  science  he  was  the  first  to 
prove  by  statistical  facts  and  by  reasoning  based  upon  univer- 
sally recognized  principles  of  political  economy  that  capital- 
istic production  must  necessarily  lead  to  the  monopolizing  and 
concentrating  of  all  industry  into  the  hands  of  a  few,  and 
thus,  by  robbing  the  working  class  of  the  fruits  of  their  toil, 
reduce  them  to  absolute  slavery  and  degradation."  These 
words  were  read  to  the  audience  in  English  by  Philip  Van 
Patten  and  in  German  by  our  worthy  comrade,  Justus  Schwab. 
Is  it  possible  that  these  men  are  so  utterly  unacquainted  with 
the  literature  of  Socialism  that  they  do  not  know  this  state- 
ment to  be  false,  and  that  the  tendency  and  consequence  of 
capitalistic  production  referred  to  were  demonstrated  to  the 
world  time  and  again  during  the  twenty  years  preceding  the 
publication  of  "  Das  Kapital,"  with  a  wealth  of  learning,  a 
cogency  and  subtlety  of  reasoning,  and  an  ardor  of  style  to 
which  Karl  Marx  could  not  so  much  as  pretend  ?  In  the 
numerous  works  of  P.  J.  Proudhon,  published  between  1840 
and  i860,  this  notable  truth  was  turned  over  and  over  and 
inside  out  until  well-nigh  every  phase  of  it  had  been  presented 
to  the  light. 

What  was  the  economic  theory  developed  by  Karl  Marx  ? 
That  we  may  not  be  accused  of  stating  it  unfairly,  we  give 
below  an  admirable  outline  of  it  drawn  by  Benoit  Malon,  a 
prominent  French  Socialist,  in  sympathy  with  Marx's  thought. 


478 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


Aside  from  the  special  purpose  which  we  have  in  quoting  it, 
it  is  in  itself  well  worth  the  space  which  it  requires,  being  in 
the  main  a  succinct  and  concise  statement  of  the  true  prin- 
ciples of  political  economy  : 

All  societies  that  have  existed  thus  far  in  history  have  one  common  char- 
acteristic,— the  struggle  of  classes.  Revolutions  have  changed  the  condi- 
tions of  this  struggle,  but  have  not  suppressed  it.  Though  the  bourgeoisie 
has  taken  the  place  of  feudalism,  which  was  itself  the  successor  of  the  old 
patrician  order,  and  though  slavery  and  serfdom  have  been  succeeded  by 
the  proletariat,  the  situation  has  retained  these  two  distinctive  character- 
istics,— "  the  merciless  oppression  and  exploitation  of  the  inferior  class  by 
the  dominant  class,  and  the  struggle,  either  open  or  concealed,  but  deadly 
and  constant,  of  the  classes  thus  confronting  each  other." 

The  bourgeoisie,  to  obtain  power,  had  to  invoke  political  and  economic 
liberty.  In  the  name  of  the  latter,  which  it  has  falsified,  and  aided  by 
scientific  and  industrial  progress,  it  has  revolutionized  production  and 
inaugurated  the  system  of  capitalistic  production  under  which  all  wealth 
appears  as  an  immense  accumulation  of  merchandise  formed  elementarily 
upon  an  isolated  quantity  of  that  wealth. 

Everything  destined  for  the  satisfaction  of  a  human  need  has  a  value  of 
utility  ;  as  merchandise  it  has  a  value  of  exchange.  Value  of  exchange  is 
the  quantitative  relation  governing  the  equivalence  and  exchangeability 
of  useful  objects. 

As  the  most  eminent  economists  have  shown,  notably  Ricardo,  this 
quantitative  relation,  this  measure  of  value,  is  time  spent  in  labor.  This, 
of  course,  can  refer  only  to  the  amount  of  labor  necessary  upon  an  aver- 
age and  performed  with  average  skill,  mechanical  facilities,  and  industry 
under  the  normal  industrial  conditions  of  the  day. 

It  seems,  therefore,  that  every  one  should  be  able  to  buy,  in  return  for 
his  labor,  an  amount  of  utilities  and  exchangeable  values  equivalent  to 
those  produced  by  him. 

Nevertheless,  such  is  not  the  case.  "  The  accumulation  of  wealth  at 
one  of  the  poles  of  society  keeps  pace  with  the  accumulation,  at  the  other 
pole,  of  the  misery,  subjection,  and  moral  degradation  of  the  class  from 
whose  product  capital  is  born." 

How  happens  this?  Because,  by  a  series  of  robberies  which,  though 
sometimes  legal,  are  none  the  less  real,  the  productive  forces,  as  fast 
as  they  have  come  into  play,  have  been  appropriated  by  privileged 
persons  who,  thanks  to  this  instrumentum  regni,  control  labor  and  exploit 
laborers. 

To-day  he  who  is  destined  to  become  a  capitalist  goes  into  the  market 
furnished  with  money.  He  first  buys  tools  and  raw  materials,  and  then, 
in  order  to  operate  them,  buys  the  workingman's  power  of  labor,  the  sole 
source  of  value.  He  sets  them  to  work.  The  total  product  goes  into  the 
capitalist's  hands,  who  sells  it  for  more  than  it  cost  him.  Of  the  plus- 
value  capital  is  born  ;  it  increases  in  proportion  to  the  quantity  of  plus- 
value  or  labor  not  paid  for.  All  capital,  then,  is  an  accumulation  of  the 
surplus  labor  of  another,  or  labor  not  paid  for  in  wages. 

For  this  singular  state  of  things  individuals  are  not  to  be  held  respon- 
sible ;  it  is  the  result  of  our  capitalistic  society,  for  all  events,  all  individ- 
ual acts  are  but  the  processus  of  inevitable  forces  slowly  modifiable,  since, 
'  when  a  society  has  succeeded  in  discovering  the  path  of  the  natural  law 
which  governs  its  movement,  it  can  neither  clear  it  at  a*  leap  nor  abolish 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


479 


by  decree  the  phases  of  its  natural  development.  But  it  can  shorten  the 
period  of  gestation  and  lessen  the  pains  of  delivery." 

We  cannot,  then,  go  against  the  tendencies  of  a  society,  but  only  direct 
them  toward  the  general  good.  So  capitalistic  society  goes  on  irresisti- 
bly concentrating  capital. 

To  attempt  to  stop  this  movement  would  be  puerile  ;  the  necessary 
step  is  to  pass  from  the  inevitable  monopolization  of  the  forces  of  pro- 
duction and  circulation  to  their  nationalization,  and  that  by  a  series  of 
legal  measures  resulting  from  the  capture  of  political  power  by  the  work- 
ing classes. 

In  the  meantime  the  evil  will  grow.  By  virtue  of  the  law  of  wages  the 
increase  in  the  productivity  of  labor  by  the  perfecting  of  machinery  in- 
creases the  frequency  of  dull  seasons  and  makes  poverty  more  general  by 
diminishing  the  demand  for  and  augmenting  the  supply  of  laborers. 

That  is  easily  understood. 

For  the  natural  production  of  values  of  utility  determined  and  regulated 
by  real  or  fancied  needs,  which  was  in  vogue  until  the  eighteenth  century, 
is  substituted  the  mercantile  production  of  values  of  exchange, — a  produc- 
tion without  rule  or  measure,  which  runs  after  the  buyer  and  stops  in  its 
headlong  course  only  when  the  markets  of  the  world  are  gorged  to  over- 
flowing. Then  millions  out  of  the  hundreds  of  millions  of  proUtaires 
who  have  been  engaged  in  this  production  are  thrown  out  of  work  and 
their  ranks  are  thinned  by  hunger,  all  in  consequence  of  the  superabun- 
dance created  by  an  unregulated  production. 

The  new  economic  forces  which  the  bourgeoisie  has  appropriated  have 
not  completed  their  development,  and  even  now  the  bourgeois  envelope 
of  capitalistic  production  can  no  longer  contain  them.  Just  as  industry 
on  a  small  scale  was  violently  broken  down  because  it  obstructed  produc- 
tion, so  capitalistic  privileges,  beginning  to  obstruct  the  production  which 
they  developed,  will  be  broken  down  in  their  turn  ;  for  the  concentration 
of  the  means  of  production  and  the  socialization  of  labor  are  reaching  a 
point  which  renders  them  incompatible  with  their  capitalistic  envelope. 

At  this  point  the  proletariat,  like  the  bourgeoisie,  will  seize  political 
power  for  the  purpose  of  abolishing  classes  and  socializing  the  forces  of 
production  and  circulation  in  the  same  order  that  they  have  been  mo- 
nopolized by  capitalistic  feudalism. 

The  foregoing  is  an  admirable  argument,  and  Liberty  en- 
dorses the  whole  of  it,  excepting  a  few  phrases  concerning  the 
nationalization  of  industry  and  the  assumption  of  political 
power  by  the  working  people  ;  but  it  contains  literally  nothing 
in  substantiation  of  the  claim  made  for  Marx  in  the  Cooper 
Institute  resolutions.  Proudhon  was  years  before  Marx  with 
nearly  every  link  in  this  logical  chain.  We  stand  ready  to  give 
volume,  chapter,  and  page  of  his  writings  for  the  historical 
persistence  of  class  struggles  in  successive  manifestations,  for 
the  bourgeoisie  s  appeal  to  liberty  and  its  infidelity  thereto,  for 
the  theory  that  labor  is  the  source  and  measure  of  value,  for 
the  laborer's  inability  to  repurchase  his  product  in  consequence 
of  the  privileged  capitalist's  practice  of  keeping  back  a  part  of 
it  from  his  wages,  and  for  the  process  of  the  monopolistic  con- 
centration of  capital  and  its  disastrous  results.    The  vital  dif- 


480 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


ference  between  Proudhon  and  Marx  is  to  be  found  in  the 
respective  remedies  which  they  proposed.  Marx  would  nation- 
alize the  productive  and  distributive  forces  ;  Proudhon  would 
individualize  and  associate  them.  Marx  would  make  the  labor- 
ers political  masters  ;  Proudhon  would  abolish  political  mas- 
tership entirely.  Marx  would  abolish  usury  by  having  the 
State  lay  violent  hands  on  all  industry  and  business  and  con- 
duct it  on  the  cost  principle  ;  Proudhon  would  abolish  usury 
by  disconnecting  the  State  entirely  from  industry  and  business 
and  forming  a  system  of  free  banks  which  would  furnish  credit 
at  cost  to  every  industrious  and  deserving  person,  and  thus 
place  the  means  of  production  within  the  reach  of  all.  Marx 
believed  in  compulsory  majority  rule  ;  Proudhon  believed  in 
the  voluntary  principle.  In  short,  Marx  was  an  autoritaire ; 
Proudhon  was  a  champion  of  Liberty. 

Call  Marx,  then,  the  father  of  State  Socialism,  if  you  will  ; 
but  we  dispute  his  paternity  of  the  general  principles  of  econ- 
omy on  which  all  schools  of  Socialism  agree.  To  be  sure,  it 
is  not  of  the  greatest  consequence  who  was  first  with  these 
doctrines.  As  Proudhon  himself  asks  :  "  Do  we  eulogize  the 
man  who  first  perceives  the  dawn  ?  "  But  if  any  discrimination 
is  to  be  made,  let  it  be  a  just  one.  There  is  much,  very  much 
that  can  be  truly  said  in  honor  of  Karl  Marx.  Let  us  be  sat- 
isfied with  that,  then,  and  not  attempt  to  magnify  his  grandeur 
by  denying,  belittling,  or  ignoring  the  services  of  men  greater 
than  he. 


DO  THE  KNIGHTS  OF  LABOR  LOVE  LIBERTY? 

[Liberty,  February  20,  1886.] 

To  the  Editor  of  Liberty  : 

In  Liberty  of  January  9  I  see,  in  your  notice  of  our  friend,  Henry 
Appleton,  having  become  the  editor  of  the  Newsman,  this  precautionary 
language,  or  mild  censure,  from  you  to  him  :  "  Will  he  pardon  me  if  I 
add  that  I  look  with  grave  doubts  upon  his  advice  to  newsdealers  to  join 
the  Knights  of  Labor?  His  own  powerful  pen  has  often  clearly  pointed 
out  in  these  columns  the  evils  of  that  organization  and  of  all  others  simi- 
lar to  it."  And  further  on  you  say  :  "A  significant  hint  of  what  may  be 
expected  from  the  Knights  of  Labor  is  to  be  found  in  the  address  of 
Grand  Master  Powderly,  the  head  and  front  of  that  body,  before  its 
latest  national  convention.  He  said  in  most  emphatic  terms  that  it  would 
not  do  for  the  organization  to  simply  frown  upon  the  use  of  dynamite, 
but  that  any  member  hereafter  advocating  the  use  of  dynamite  must  be  sum- 
marily expelled." 

Now,  I  do  not  know  how  much  you  know  about  the  Knights  of  Labor, 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


nor  do  I  know  how  much  our  friend,  Henry  Appleton,  knows  about  the 
Knights  of  Labor.  But  this  much  I  am  impelled  to  say  after  reading 
your  reproving  strictures, — that  it  is  neither  safe,  prudent,  or  wise  to 
condemn  or  censure  any  body  of  liberty-loving  and  earnestly  truth-seek- 
ing people  who  are  associated  together  to  enlighten  themselves  as  to  what 
real  Liberty  is  as  well  as  to  what  are  their  most  important  and  highest 
natural  rights,  duties,  or  privileges  without  a  full  knowledge  of  their  ob- 
jects, aims,  and  their  methods  to  promote  and  achieve  them.  I  can 
further  confidently  say  that  I  have  for  more  than  forty  years  been  an 
earnest  seeker  for  these  all-important  natural  scientific  principles  as 
taught  or  set  forth  by  the  most  advanced  individual  thinkers  or  defenders 
of  Liberty, — real  Anarchists,  if  you  please, — and  I  have  found  more  per- 
sons holding  said  views  and  seeking  the  knowledge  of  these  natural,  in- 
alienable laws  or  principles  of  scientific  government  among  the  members 
of  this  condemned  association  or  school  than  I  ever  found  outside  of  it. 
And  I  am  confident  that  I  can  find  more  friends  and  earnest  defenders 
of  Liberty  in  its  ranks  than  I  can  find  outside  of  it.  In  fact,  this  school 
was  founded  to  place  Labor  on  a  scientific  basis  and  teach  individual 
self-government  at  the  expense  of  the  individual  without  invading  or  in- 
fringing on  the  rights  of  others.  Therefore,  notwithstanding  the  opin- 
ions you  have  formed  or  the  conclusions  you  may  have  arrived  at  in  re- 
gard to  this  association  or  school,  I  fully  indorse  Friend  Appleton's 
advice  to  the  newsmen  as  well  as  all  other  useful  workers  who  are  in 
pursuit  of  Liberty,  truth,  justice,  and  a  knowledge  of  their  natural  rights 
and  highest  duties.  And  although  this  association  or  school  may  be 
composed  of  a  large  majority  of  members  who  are  laboring  under  the 
disadvantages  of  previous  superstition,  education,  or  training  by  the 
bossism  of  Church  and  State,  nevertheless  1  esteem  it  the  best  oppor- 
tunity, opening,  or  school  in  which  to  free  them  from  said  superstitions 
that  I  have  ever  met  with,  and  for  which  the  best  minds  in  said  school 
are  constantly  and  earnestly  laboring.  And  pardon  me,  Friend  Tucker, 
for  the  suggestion  that  perhaps,  if  you  knew  more  about  their  objects, 
aims,  and  methods,  you  might  think  better  of  them  than  you  now  do. 

Fair  Plav. 

Criticism  from  a  man  like  "  Fair  Play,"  whom  I  know  to  be 
a  real  knight  of  labor,  whether  nominally  one  or  not,  is  always 
welcome  in  these  columns,  and  will  always  deserve  and  secure 
my  attention.  In  attending  to  it  in  this  special  case  my  first 
business  is  to  repeat  what  I  have  said  already, — that  I  mis- 
quoted Henry  Appleton,  that  he  has  never  advised  newsdeal- 
ers to  join  the  Knights  of  Labor,  and  that  he  is  as  much  op- 
posed to  the  principles  and  purposes  of  that  order  as  I  am. 

I  don't  pretend  to  know  very  much  about  the  Knights  of 
Labor,  but  I  know  enough  to  make  it  needless  to  know  more. 
I  know,  for  instance,  their  "  Declaration  of  Principles,"  and 
my  fatal  objections  to  these  principles,  or  most  of  them,  no 
additional  knowledge  of  the  order  could  possibly  obviate  or  in 
any  way  invalidate  or  weaken.  Of  them  the  preamble  itself 
says:  "  Most  of  the  objects  herein  set  forth  can  only  be  ob- 
tained through  legislation,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  all  to  assist  in 


482 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


nominating  and  supporting  with  their  votes  only  such  candi- 
dates as  will  pledge  their  support  to  those  measures,  regardless 
of  party."  Does  "  Fair  Play  "  mean  to  tell  me  that  he  knows 
of  any  "  real  Anarchist "  who  consents  to  stultify  himself  by 
belonging  to  a  society  founded  on  that  proposition  ?  If  he 
does,  I  answer  that  that  man  either  does  not  know  what  An- 
archy means,  or  else  is  as  false  to  his  principles  as  would  be 
an  Infidel  who  should  subscribe  to  the  creed  of  John  Calvin. 
Anarchy  and  this  position  are  utterly  irreconcilable;  and  no 
man  who  understands  both  of  them  (with  the  possible  excep- 
tion of  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews)  would  ever  attempt  to  recon- 
cile them. 

But  what  are  these  objects  which  these  "  liberty -loving " 
people  expect  to  realize  by  that  eminently  Anarchistic  weapon, 
the  ballot  ?  The  "  Declaration  "  goes  on  to  state  them.  "  We 
demand  at  the  hands  of  the  State  "  (think  of  an  Anarchist 
demanding  anything  of  the  State  except  its  death!): 

"  That  all  lands  now  held  for  speculative  purposes  be  taxed 
to  their  full  value."  How  long  since  taxation  became  an 
Anarchistic  measure  ?  It  is  my  impression  that  Anarchists 
look  upon  taxation  as  the  bottom  tyranny  of  all. 

"  The  enactment  of  laws  to  compel  corporations  to  pay 
their  employees  weekly  in  lawful  money."  Anarchism  practi- 
cally rests  upon  freedom  of  contract.  Does  not  this  impair 
it  ?  What  party,  outside  of  the  makers  of  a  contract,  has  any 
right  to  decide  its  conditions  ? 

"  The  enactment  of  laws  providing  for  arbitration  between 
employers  and  employed,  and  to  enforce  the  decision  of  the 
arbitrators."  That  is,  the  State  must  fix  the  rate  of  wages 
and  the  conditions  of  the  performance  of  labor.  The  An- 
archist who  would  indorse  that  must  be  a  curiosity. 

"  The  prohibition  by  law  of  the  employment  of  children 
under  fifteen  years  of  age  in  workshops,  mines,  and  factories." 
In  other  words,  a  boy  of  fourteen  shall  not  be  allowed  to 
choose  his  occupation.    What  Anarchist  takes  this  position  ? 

"  That  a  graduated  income  tax  be  levied."  How  this  would 
lessen  the  sphere  of  government  ! 

"  The  establishment  of  a  national  monetary  system,  in  which 
a  circulating  medium  in  necessary  quantity  shall  issue  direct 
to  the  people  without  the  intervention  of  banks;  that  all  the 
national  issue  shall  be  full  legal  tender  in  payment  of  all 
debts,  public  and  private;  and  that  the  government  shall  not 
guarantee  or  recognize  private  banks,  or  create  any  banking 
corporations."  If  "  Fair  Play"  knows  of  any  Anarchists  who 
have  subscribed  to  this,  I  wish  he  would  furnish  their  ad- 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


4*3 


dresses.  I  should  like  to  send  them  Colonel  Greene's  Mutual 
Banking  "  and  the  keen  and  powerful  chapter  of  Lysander 
Spooner's  "  Letter  to  Grover  Cleveland  "  which  treats  of  the 
congressional  crime  of  altering  contracts  by  legal-tender  laws. 
Perhaps  they  might  thus  be  brought  to  their  senses. 

But  need  I,  as  I  easily  might,  extend  this  list  of  tyrannical 
measures  to  convince  Friend  "  Fair  Play  "  that,  however  much 
I  might  know  about  the  Knights  of  Labor,  I  could  not  think 
better  of  them  than  I  now  do? 

The  trouble  is  that  "  Fair  Play  "  and  reformers  generally  do 
not  yet  know  what  to  make  of  such  a  phenomenon  in  journal- 
ism as  a  radical  reform  paper  which,  instead  of  offering  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship  to  everything  calling  itself  radical 
and  reformatory,  adopts  a  principle  for  its  compass  and  steers 
a  straight  course  by  it.  They  all  like  it  first-rate  until  its 
course  conflicts  with  theirs.  Then  they  exclaim  in  horror.  I 
am  sorry  to  thus  shock  them,  but  I  cannot  help  it ;  I  must 
keep  straight  on.  When  I  launched  this  little  newspaper  craft, 
I  hoisted  the  flag  of  Liberty.  I  hoisted  it  not  as  a  name 
merely,  but  as  a  vital  principle,  by  which  I  mean  to  live  and 
die.  With  the  valued  aid  of  "  Fair  Play  "  and  others,  added 
to  my  own  efforts,  it  has  been  kept  flying  steadily  at  the  mast- 
head. It  has  not  been  lowered  an  inch,  and,  while  I  have 
strength  to  defend  it,  it  never  will  be.  And  if  any  man  at- 
tempts to  pull  it  down,  I  care  not  who  he  may  be,  Knight  of 
Capital  or  Knight  of  Labor,  I  propose,  at  least  with  mental 
and  moral  ammunition,  to  "shoot  him  on  the  spot." 


PLAY-HOUSE  PHILANTHROPY. 

[Liberty,  November  26,  1881.] 

Among  the  ablest  and  most  interesting  contributions  to  the 
columns  of  the  Irish  World  are  the  sketches  of  one  of  its 
staff  correspondents,  "  Honorius,"  in  which  that  writer,  week 
after  week,  with  all  the  skill  and  strategy  of  a  born  general, 
marshals  anecdote,  illustration,  history,  biography,  fact,  logic, 
and  the  experiences  of  every-day  life  in  impregnable  line  of 
battle,  and  precipitates  them  upon  the  cohorts  of  organized 
tyranny  and  theft,  making  irreparable  breaches  in  their  fortifi- 
cations, and  spreading  havoc  throughout  their  ranks.  The 
ingenuity  which  he  displays  in  utilizing  his  material  and  turn- 
ing everything  to  the  account  of  his  cause  is  marvellous.  Out 


484 


INSTEAD  OF  A  ROOK. 


of  each  new  fact  that  falls  under  his  notice,  out  of  each  new 
character  with  whom  he  comes  in  contact,  he  develops  some 
fresh  argument  against  the  system  of  theft  that  underlies  our 
so-called  "  civilization,"  some  novel  application  of  the  prin- 
ciples that  must  underlie  the  coming  true  society. 

Unless  we  are  greatly  mistaken,  the  latest  of  his  assaults  will 
not  prove  the  least  effective,  since  in  it  he  has  improved  an 
excellent  opportunity  to  turn  his  guns  upon  enemies  nearer 
home,  enemies  in  the  guise  of  friends.  He  briefly  tells  the 
story  of  the  career  of  a  Yorkshire  factory-lord,  one  Sir  Titus 
Salt,  who,  through  his  fortunate  discovery  of  the  process  of 
manufacturing  alpaca  cloth,  accumulated  an  enormous  fortune, 
which  he  expended  in  the  establishment  of  institutions  for  the 
benefit  of  his  employees  and  in  deeds  of  general  philanthropy. 
To  this  man  he  pays  a  tribute  of  praise  for  various  virtues, 
which,  for  aught  we  know,  is  well  deserved.  But  he  supple- 
ments it  by  forcible  insistance  on  the  fact  that  Sir  Titus  was 
but  a  thief  after  all ;  that,  however  great  his  generosity  of 
heart,  it  was  exercised  in  the  distribution  of  other  people's 
earnings  ;  and  that  his  title  to  exemption  from  the  condemna- 
tion of  honest  men  was  no  better  than  that  of  the  more  merci- 
ful of  the  Southern  slave-owners.  The  importance  of  this 
lesson  it  is  impossible  to  overestimate.  Gains  are  no  less  ill- 
gotten  because  well-given.  Philanthropy  cannot  palliate  plun- 
der. Robbery,  though  it  be  not  born  of  rapacity,  is  robbery 
still.  This  Sir  Titus  Salt  but  serves  as  a  type  of  a  large  class  of 
individuals  who  are  ever  winning  the  applause  and  admiration 
of  a  world  too  prone  to  accept  benevolence  and  charity  in  the 
stead  of  justice  and  righteousness. 

Perhaps  the  most  conspicuous  example  of  the  class  referred 
to  now  posing  before  the  world  is  the  man  referred  to  by 
"  Honorius  "  in  connection  and  comparison  with  Sir  Titus, — 
Godin  of  Guise,  the  famous  founder  of  the  Familisterre.  "  The 
great  Godin  of  Guise,"  a  Honorius  "  styles  him  ;  and  it  is  pre- 
cisely because  this  clear-headed  writer,  misinformed  as  to  the 
real  facts,  makes  him  the.  object  of  exaggerated  and  misplaced 
adulation  that  the  present  article  is  written.  Of  Sir  Titus  Salt 
we  could  not  speak,  but  of  the  Familisterre  and  its  founder 
we  can  say  somewhat  that  may  interest  and  enlighten  their 
admirers.    But  first  the  words  of  "  Honorius  ": 

Sir  Titus  Salt  was  the  companion,  as  a  noble-souled  employer,  to  that 
fellow-philanthropist,  the  great  Godin  of  Guise,  who  founded  the  famous 
social  palace  known  as  the  Familisterre,  although  not  so  grand  a  character 
as  the  renowned  Frenchman.  Titus  Salt  was  a  sectarian.  His  $80,000 
church  was  for  the  "  accommodation  "  of  his  own  sect,  and  those  who  held 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


485 


to  other  creeds  found  no  place  of  worship  from  his  money.  Godin  was  a 
grand,  liberal  soul.  Though  educated  a  Catholic,  he  made  the  most  lib- 
eral provision  for  every  shade  of  belief  among  his  working  people,  and  he 
despised  every  form  of  narrowness  and  bigotry.  Godin,  too,  was  too 
noble  a  soul  to  descend  to  the  arts  of  the  politician,  and  would  have  de- 
spised himself  had  he  solicited  a  vote  from  any  of  his  people.  So  wonder- 
ful was  the  success  of  his  industrial  experiment  at  Guise  that  Louis  Napo- 
leon became  jealous  of  the  possibilities  for  labor  which  he  had  demonstra- 
ted, and  that  despicable  fraud  and  royal  scoundrel,  "Louis  the  Little," 
repeatedly  went  out  of  his  way  to  hamper  his  business,  and  even  sought  to 
disfranchise  him. 

Let  us  see  how  much  of  this  is  true, — if  this  man  is  really 
great,  or  only  a  pretender  and  a  sham.  It  was  once  our  privi- 
lege to  visit  the  Familisterre.  The  visit  extended  through  the 
better  part  of  a  week,  and  occurred  at  a  very  favorable  time, 
including  one  of  the  two  annual  fete  days  (celebrating  Educa- 
tion and  Labor)  peculiar  to  the  institution.  But  the  impres- 
sion left  on  our  mind  was'by  no  means  favorable.  The  estab- 
lishment seemed  pervaded  throughout  by  an  atmosphere  of 
supervision  and  routine,  tempered  here  and  there  by  awkward 
attempts  at  the  picturesque.  The  air  of  buoyant  contentment 
which  the  glowing  accounts  given  of  the  Social  Palace  would 
lead  one  to  expect  did  not  characterize  the  members  of  the 
large  household  to  any  great  extent.  The  workmen  seemed 
to  feel  themselves  and  their  class  still  the  victims  of  oppres- 
sion. A  very  slight  acquaintance  with  them  was  sufficient  to 
reveal  the  fact  that  their  "  boss"  and  "benefactor"  does  not 
appear  as  godlike  in  their  eyes  as  in  those  that  view  him  at  a 
distance.  In  the  presence  of  the  inquiring  observer  their  faces 
assumed  an  expression  that  seemed  to  say  :  "  Oh,  you  think 
it's  all  very  pretty,  no  doubt  :  no  rags  here,  no  dirt ;  every- 
thing clean  and  orderly,  and  a  moderate  degree  of  external 
comfort  among  us  all.  But  all  this  has  to  be  paid  for  by 
somebody,  and  it  is  the  outside  world  that  foots  the  bills.  Our 
master  has  the  reputation  of  being  very  kind  and  generous,  but 
he  is  our  master.  We  enjoy  this  material  welfare  at  the  ex- 
pense of  something  of  our  independence.  Besides,  he's  got 
a  soft  thing  of  it, — rolling  up  his  millions  year  by  year  and 
excusing  himself  by  distributing  a  certain  proportion  of  his 
stealings  among  us  ;  but  he  and  the  rest  of  us  are  living  very 
largely  on  our  fellow-laborers  elsewhere,  out  of  whose  pock- 
ets these  immense  profits  come." 

And  actual  questioning  proved  that  their  faces  told  the 
truth.  Inabilty  to  converse  fluently  in  French  prevented  us 
from  inquiring  closely  into  details;  but  from  an  intelligent 
young  Russian  visiting  the  place  at  the  same  time  and  on 


486 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


much  the  same  mission  as  ourselves,  whose  knowledge  of 
French  and  English  was  excellent,  we  elicited  information 
quite  sufficient.  The  more  intelligent  of  the  workmen  had 
told  him  confidentially  just  what  we  had  read  in  their  faces 
as  stated  above,  not  a  few  of  them  confessing  that  M.  Godin, 
who  at  that  time  was  a  member  of  the  National  Chamber  of 
Deputies,  held  his  seat  by  a  method  strikingly  similar  to  that 
which  in  Massachusetts  the  Boston  Herald  is  wont  to  apolo- 
gize for  as  "  civilized  bulldozing," — that  is,  prior  to  election 
day  he  contrived  to  have  it  understood  among  his  employees 
that  a  convenient  opportunity  would  be  found  for  the  dis- 
charge of  such  of  them  as  should  fail  to  vote  for  him,  no 
matter  what  their  previous  political  affiliations  or  present 
political  beliefs.  And  yet  "Honorius"  says  (or  seems  to  hint) 
that  he  is  not  ambitious,  and  "  Honorius  "  is  an  honorable 
man.  Hundreds  and  thousands  of  honorable  men  share  the 
same  delusion, — for  a  delusion  it  certainly  is. 

A  strange  sort  of  "  philanthropist,"  this  !  A  singular  "  nobil- 
ity of  soul  "  is  M.  Godin's  !  His  religious  liberality  referred 
to  by  "  Honorius"  evidently  does  not  extend  into  his'business 
and  politics.  Here  is  a  man,  ingenious,  shrewd,  calculating, 
with  large  executive  capacity  and  something  of  a  taste  for  phi- 
losophy, who  discovers  an  industrial  process  which,  through  a 
monopoly  guaranteed  by  the  patent  laws,  he  is  enabled  to 
carry  on  at  an  enormous  profit  ;  he  employs  hundreds  of  ope- 
ratives ;  for  them  and  their  families  he  builds  a  gigantic  home, 
which  he  dignifies  by  the  name  of  a  palace,  though  it  needs 
but  a  few  bolts  and  bars  to  make  it  seem  more  like  a  prison, 
so  cheerless,  formal,  and  forbidding  is  its  gloomy  aspect ;  he 
distributes  among  them  a  portion  of  the  profits,  perhaps  to 
quiet  his  conscience,  perhaps  to  become  noted  for  fair  ;  dealing 
and  philanthropy  ;  the  balance — more  than  sufficient  to  sat- 
isfy the  ordinary  manufacturer  subject  to  competition — he 
complacently  pockets,  putting  forth,  meanwhile,  the  ridiculous 
pretence  that  he  holds  this  fund  as  a  trustee  ;  finally,  know- 
ing nothing  of  Liberty  and  Equity  and  sneering  at  their  defen- 
ders, he  professes  to  think  that  he  can  regenerate  the  world 
by  the  fanciful  and  unsound  schemes  of  education  that  he 
spends  his  leisure  hours  in  devising  and  realizing,  supporting 
them  with  wealth  gained  by  theft,  power  gained  by  indirect 
bribery  and  bulldozing,  and  popularity  gained  by  pretence  and 
humbuggery.  Nevertheless,  for  doing  this  the  whole  human- 
itarian world  and  not  a  few  hard-headed  reformers  bow  down 
and  worship  him.  Even  clear-sighted  "  Honorius "  heaps 
honors  on  his  head.    But  "  Honorius  "  knows,  and  does  not 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


487 


fail  to  emphasize,  the  true  lesson  of  the  man's  life,  which  is 
that  the  impending  social  revolution  has  certain  fixed  prin- 
ciples behind  it  ;  that  one  of  these  principles  is,  "  Thou  shalt 
not  steal  "  ;  that  any  scheme  by  which  a  single  individual 
becomes  inordinately  rich,  whether  as  proprietor  or  trustee 
(unless  the  trust  be  purely  voluntary),  is  necessarily  carried  on 
in  violation  of  that  principle  ;  and  that  whoever  prosecutes  it 
as  in  accordance  with  that  principle  thereby  proves  himself 
either  too  ignorant  or  too  insincere  to  be  allowed  to  serve, 
much  less  to  lead,  in  the  revolutionary  movement.  Such  a 
man  is  of  the  plunderers,  and  should  be  with  them.  Idol- 
smashing  is  no  enviable  task  ;  but  to  unmask  the  pretensions 
of  play-house  philanthropists  whose  highest  conception  of  dis- 
tributive justice  seems  to  be  the  sharing  with  a  fortunate  few 
of  goods  stolen  from  the  many  is  a  service  that,  however  disa- 
greeable, is  of  prime  necessity  in  the  realization  of  that  Equity 
which  distributes  to  each  the  product  of  his  labor  and  that 
Liberty  which  renders  it  impossible  for  one  to  reap  the  profit 
of  another's  toil. 


BEWARE  OF  BATTERSON ! 

[Liberty,  March  6,  1886.] 

Gertrude  B. 1  Kelly,  who,  by  her  articles  in  Liberty,  has 
placed  herself  at  a  single  bound  among  the  foremost  radical 
writers  of  this  or  any  other  country,  exposes  elsewhere  in 
a  masterful  manner  the  unique  scheme  of  one  Batterson,  an 
employer  of  labor  in  Westerly,  R.  I.,  which  he  calls  co-opera- 
tion. But  there  is  one  feature  of  this  scheme,  the  most  in- 
iquitous of  all,  which  needs  still  further  emphasis.  It  is  to  be 
found  in  the  provision  which  stipulates  that  no  workman  dis- 
charged for  good  cause  or  leaving  the  employ  of  the  company 
without  the  written  consent  of  the  superintendent  shall  be 
allowed  even  that  part  of  the  annual  dividend  to  labor  to 
which  he  is  entitled  by  such  labor  as  he  has  already  per- 
formed that  year.  In  this  lies  cunningly  hidden  the  whole 
motive  of  the  plot.  By  promising  to  give  labor  at  the  end  of 
the  year  the  paltry  sum  of  one  third  of  such  profits  as  are  left 
after  the  stockholders  have  gobbled  six  per  cent,  on  their  in- 
vestment, and  adding  that  not  even  a  proportional  part  of 
this  dividend  shall  be  given  to  labor  if  it  quits  work  before 
the  end  of  the  year,  this  Batterson  deprives  the  laborers  of 


48S 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


the  only  weapon  of  self-defence  now  within  their  reach, — the 
strike, — and  leaves  them  utterly  defenceless  until  they  shall 
become  intelligent  enough  to  know  the  value  and  learn  the 
use  of  Anarchistic  methods  and  weapons. 

Having  got  his  laborers  thus  thoroughly  in  his  power,  and 
after  waiting  long  enough  to  establish  their  confidence  in  him 
and  his  scheme,  Batterson's  next  step  will  probably  be  to 
gradually  screw  down  the  wages.  The  laborers  will  have  to 
submit  to  each  reduction  as  it  comes,  or  lose  their  dividend  ; 
and  for  the  average  laborer  there  is  such  a  charm  in  the  word 
"  dividend  "  that  he  will  go  to  the  verge  of  starvation  before 
giving  it 'up.  Now,  of  every  dollar  which  Batterson  thus  man- 
ages to  squeeze  out  of  labor,  only  forty  cents  or  less  will  come 
back  to  labor  in  the  shape  of  dividend,  the  balance  going  into 
capital's  pockets.  Hence  it  is  obvious  that  the  reducing  pro- 
cess will  have  to  be  kept  up  but  a  short  time  before  capital's 
income  will  be  larger  and  labor's  income  less  than  before  the 
adoption  of  this  philanthropic  scheme  of  "co-operation." 
And,  moreover,  capital  will  thereby  secure  the  additional  ad- 
vantage of  feeling  entirely  independent  of  labor  and  will  not 
have  to  lie  awake  nights  in  anticipation  of  a  strike,  knowing 
that,  however  rigorously  it  may  apply  the  lash,  its  slaves  will 
still  be  dumb. 

Additional  evidence  that  this  is  Batterson's  plan  is  to  be 
found  in  the  further  stipulation  that  no  dividend  will  be 
allowed  to  superintendents,  overseers,  bookkeepers,  clerks,  or 
any  employees  except  the  manual  laborers.  Why  ?  Because 
these  never  strike.  '  As  it  is  not  within  their  power  to  tempo- 
rarily cripple  his  business,  Batterson  has  no  motive  to  offer 
them  even  a  phantom  dividend. 

Altogether,  this  is  one  of  the  wiliest  and  foulest  plots 
against  industry  ever  hatched  in  the  brain  of  a  member  of  the 
robber  class.  But,  though  capital,  by  some  such  method  as 
this,  may  succeed  in  suppressing  strikes  for  a  time,  it  will 
thereby  only  close  the  safety-valve  ;  the  great  and  final  strike 
will  be  the  more  violent  when  it  breaks  out.  If  the  laborers 
do  not  beware  of  Batterson  now,  the  day  will  come  when  it 
will  behoove  Batterson  to  beware  of  them. 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


489 


A  GRATIFYING  DISCOVERY. 

[Liberty,  May  31,  1884.] 

Liberty  made  its  first  appearance  in  August,  1881.  Of 
that  issue  a  great  many  sample  copies  were  mailed  to  selected 
addresses  all  over  the  world.  Not  one  of  these,  however,  was 
sent  from  this  office  directly  to  Nantucket,  for  I  had  never 
heard  of  a  radical  on  that  island.  But,  through  some  channel 
or  other,  a  copy  found  its  way  thither  ;  for,  before  the  second 
number  had  been  issued,  an  envelope  bearing  the  Nantucket 
postmark  came  to  me  containing  a  greeting  for  Liberty,  than 
which  the  paper  has  had  none  since  more  warm,  more  hearty, 
more  sympathetic,  more  intelligent,  more  appreciative. 

But  the  letter  was  anonymous.  Its  style  and  language, 
however,  showed  Its  writer  to  be  a  very  superior  person, 
which  fact,  of  course,  added  value  to  the  substance  of  its 
contents.  The  writer  expressed  his  unqualified  approval  of 
the  political  and  social  doctrines  enunciated  in  the  first  num- 
ber of  Liberty  (and  certainly  in  no  number  since  have  those 
doctrines  been  stated  more  boldly  and  nakedly  than  in  that 
one),  saying  that  these  views  had  been  held  by  him  for  years, 
and  that  the  advent  of  an  organ  for  their  dissemination  was 
what  he  had  long  been  waiting  for.  He  gently  chided  Lib- 
erty, nevertheless,  for  its  anti-religious  attitude,  not  so  much 
apparently  from  any  counter-attitude  of  his  own  or  from  any 
personal  sensitiveness  in  that  direction,  as  from  a  feeling  that 
religious  beliefs  are  essentially  private  in  their  nature  and  so 
peculiar  to  the  individuals  holding  them  as  to  exempt  them 
from  public  consideration  and  criticism.  After  admonishing 
Liberty  to  abandon  this  objectionable  feature  of  its  policy, 
the  letter  closed  by  saying  that  I  did  not  need  to  know  the 
writer's  name,  but,  for  the  dollar  enclosed,  I  might  send  the 
paper  regularly  to  "Post  Office  Box  No.  22,  Nantucket, 
Mass." 

Only  the  substance  of  the  letter  is  given  above,  the  manu- 
script having  been  inadvertently  destroyed  with  an  accumula- 
tion of  others  some  time  ago.  To  the  given  address  Liberty 
has  .regularly  gone,  and  I  never  failed  to  wonder,  when  mail- 
ing-day came,  as  to  the  identity  of  the  mysterious  Na^- 
tucketer. 

Lately  came  the  revelation.  It  will  be  remembered  that  a 
death  occurred  in  Nantucket  a  few  weeks  ago  which  attracted 


49° 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


the  attention  of  the  whole  country  and  occasioned  columns  of 
newspaper  tribute  and  comment.  In  reading  the  various 
obituaries  of  the  deceased,  I  learned  that  he  was  a  man  who 
had  thought  much  and  written  radically  on  political  subjects 
with  a  most  decided  trend  toward  complete  individual  liberty, 
that,  nevertheless,  he  had  been  brought  up  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  church,  and  to  the  end  of  his  life  was  outwardly 
connected  with  it,  though  refusing  on  his  death-bed  to  admit 
the  priests  to  his  presence  for  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ment ;  and  that,  though  a  member  of  a  profession  which 
necessarily  made  him  a  public  man,  he  had  always  shunned 
publicity  and  notoriety  in  every  way  possible. 

As  these  facts  simultaneously  presented  themselves,  the 
thought  suddenly  flashed  upon  my  mind  that  I  had  found  the 
holder  of  Box  No.  22.  Through  a  relative  visiting  Nantucket 
I  instituted  inquiries  at  the  post-office  on  that  island,  and  was 
promptly  notified  that  the  box  in  question  had  been  rented 
for  the  past  few  years  by  the  late  Charles  O'Conor.  It  was  as 
I  expected.  The  text  of  his  letter,  alas  !  is  gone,  but  not  its 
substance  from  my  memory.  The  extracts  from  his  published 
writings  soon  to  appear  in  these  columns  will  show  how  ex- 
treme a  radical  he  was  in  his  attitude  towards  governments, 
although  in  them  he  never  expressed  the  fundamental  thought 
acknowledged  in  his  letter  to  me.  Perhaps  he  regarded  that 
as  too  strong  meat  for  babes. 

I  am  no  hero-worshipper  in  the  usual  sense  of  that  term, 
and  among  the  friends  of  Liberty  there  are  a  number  of 
humbler  men  than  Charles  O'Conor,  whose  approval  I  value 
even  more  highly  than  his  ;  but  none  the  less  is  it  with  ex- 
treme gratification  that  I  now  authoritatively  record  the  fact 
that  the  great  lawyer  whose  wonderful  eloquence  and  search- 
ing intellectual  power  kept  him  for  two  decades  the  acknowl- 
edged head  of  the  American  bar,  far  from  being  the  Bourbon 
which  an  ignorant  and  dishonest  press  has  pictured  him,  was 
a  thorough-going  Anarchist. 


CASES  OF  LAMENTABLE  LONGEVITY. 

{Liberty,  March,  31,  1888.] 

The  Emperor  William  is  dead  at  the  age  of  ninety-one. 
His  was  a  long  life,  and  that  is  the  worst  of  it.  Much  may 
be  forgiven  to  a  tyrant  who  has  the  decency  to  die  young. 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


49 1 


But  to  the  memory  of  one  who  thus  prolongs  and  piles  up  the 
agony  no  mercy  can  be  shown.  As  Brick  Pomeroy  says,  there 
is  such  a  thing  as  enough.  In  ninety-one  years  of  such  a  man 
as  William,  Germany  and  the  world  had  altogether  too  much. 
However,  it  is  not  kings  alone  that  live  too  long.  That  awful 
fate  sometimes  befalls  poets.  Among  others  it  has  overtaken 
Walt  Whitman.  That  he  should  live  long  enough  to  so  far 
civilize  his  "  barbaric  yawp  "  as  to  sound  it  over  the  roofs  of 
the  world  to  bewail  Germany's  loss  of  her"  faithful  shepherd," 
and  should  do  it  too  by  the  unseemly  aid  of  the  electric 
telegraph  at  the  bidding  of  a  capitalistic  newspaper  and  pre- 
sumably for  hire,  thus  presenting  the  revolting  spectacle  of  a 
once  manly  purity  lapsing  into  prostitution  in  its  old  age,  is 
indeed  a  woful  example  of  superfluity  of  years.  The  pro- 
pensity of  poets  of  the  people,  once  past  their  singing  days,  to 
lift  their  cracked  voices  in  laudation  of  the  oppressors  of  the 
people,  burning  what  they  once  worshipped  and  worshipping 
what  they  once  burned,  tends  to  reconcile  one  to  the  otherwise 
unendurable  thought  that  Shelley  and  Byron  were  scarcely 
suffered  to  outlive  their  boyhood.  The  fall  of  Russell  Lowell 
was  a  terrible  disappointment  to  those  who  never  tire  of  read- 
ing the  "  Big'low  Papers  "  and  know  "  The  Present  Crisis  "  by 
heart,  but  the  bitterness  of  their  cup  is  honey  beside  the 
wormwood  which  all  lovers  of  "  Leaves  of  Grass  "  must  have 
tasted  when  they  read  the  lament  of  the  Bard  of  Democracy 
over  the  death  of  the  tyrant  William.  As  one  of  his  most 
enthusiastic  admirers,  I  beseech  Walt  Whitman  to  let  the  rest 
be  silence,  and  not  again  force  upon  us  the  haunting  vision  of 
what  he  once  described,  in  the  days  when  he  still  could  write, 
as  a  "sad,  hasty,  unwaked  somnambule,  walking  the  dusk." 


SPOONER  MEMORIAL  RESOLUTIONS.* 

[Liberty,  May  28,  1887.] 

Resolved :  That  Lysander  Spooner,  to  ce'.ebrate  whose  life 
and  to  lament  whose  death  we  meet  to-day,  built  for  himself, 
by  his  half  century's  study  and  promulgation  of  the  science 
of  justice,  a  monument  which  no  words  of  ours,  however  elo- 


*  Offered  by  the  author  of  this  volume  at  the  Lysander  Spooner 
Memorial  Services  held  in  Wells  Memorial  Hall,  Boston,  on  Sunday, 
May  29,  1887. 


492  INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 

quent,  can  make  more  lasting  or  more  lofty  ;  that  each  of  his 
fifty  years  and  more  of  manhood  work  and  warfare  added  so 
massive  a  stone  to  the  column  of  his  high  endeavor  that  now 
it  towers  beyond  our  reach  ;  but  that  nevertheless  it  is  meet, 
for  our  own  satisfaction  and  the  world's  welfare,  that  we 
who  knew  him  best  should  place  on  record  and  proclaim  as 
publicly  as  we  may  our  admiration,  honor,  and  reverence  for 
his  exceptional  character  and  career,  our  gratitude  for  the 
wisdom  which  he  has  imparted  to  us,  and  our  determination 
so  to  spread  the  light  for  which  we  are  thus  indebted  that 
others  may  share  with  us  the  burden  and  the  blessing  of  this 
inextinguishable  debt. 

Resolved:  That  we  recognize  in  Lysander  Spooner  a  man 
of  intellect,  a  man  of  heart,  and  a  man  of  will  ;  that  as  a  man 
of  intellect  his  thought  was  keen,  clear,  penetrating,  incisive, 
logical,  orderly,  careful,  convincing,  and  crushing,  and  set 
forth  withal  in  a  style  of  singular  strength,  purity,  and  indi- 
viduality which  needed  to  employ  none  of  the  devices  of 
rhetoric  to  charm  the  intelligent  reader  ;  that  as  a  man  of 
heart  he  was  a  good  hater  and  a  good  lover, — hating  suffer- 
ing, woe,  want,  injustice,  cruelty,  oppression,  slavery,  hypoc- 
risy, and  falsehood,  and  loving  happiness,  joy,  prosperity, 
justice,  kindness,  equality,  liberty,  sincerity,  and  truth  ;  that 
as  a  man  of  will  he  was  firm,  pertinacious,  tireless,  obdurate, 
sanguine,  scornful,  and  sure  ;  and  that  all  these  virtues  of 
intellect,  heart,  and  will  lay  hidden  beneath  a  modesty  of 
demeanor,  a  simplicity  of  life,  and  a  beaming  majesty  of 
countenance  which,  combined  with  the  venerable  aspect  of  his 
later  years,  gave  him  the  appearance,  as  he  walked  our  busy 
streets,  of  some  patriarch  or  philosopher  of  old,  and  made 
him  a  personage  delightful  to  meet  and  beautiful  to  look 
upon. 

Resolved:  That,  whether  in  his  assaults  upon  religious 
superstition,  or  in  his  battle  with  chattel  slavery,  or  in  his 
challenge  of  the  government  postal  monopoly,  or  in  his  many 
onslaughts  upon  the  banking  monopoly,  or  in  his  vehement 
appeal  to  the  Irish  peasantry  to  throw  off  the  dominion  of 
privileged  lords  over  themselves  and  their  lands,  or  in  his 
denunciation  of  prohibitory  laws,  or  in  his  dissection  of  the 
protective  tariff,  or  in  his  exposure  of  the  ballot  as  an  instru- 
ment of  tyranny,  or  in  his  denial  of  the  right  to  levy  compul- 
sory taxes,  or  in  his  demonstration  that  Constitutions  and 
statutes  are  binding  upon  nobody,  or  in  the  final  concentration 
of  all  his  energies  for  the  overthrow  of  the  State  itself,  the 
cause  and  sustenance  of  nearly  all  the  evils  against  which  he 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


493 


had  previously  struggled,  he  ever  showed  himself  the  faithful 
soldier  of  Absolute  Individual  Liberty. 

Resolved:  That,  while  he  fought  this  good  fight  and  kept 
the  faith,  he  did  not  finish  his  course,  for  his  goal  was  in  the 
eternities  ;  that,  starting  in  his  youth  in  pursuit  of  truth,  he 
kept  it  up  through  a  vigorous  manhood,  undeterred  by  poverty, 
neglect,  or  scorn,  and  in  his  later  life  relaxed  his  energies  not 
one  jot  ;  that  his  mental  vigor  seemed  to  grow  as  his  physical 
powers  declined  ;  that,  although^  counting  his  age  by  years, 
he  was  [an  octogenarian,  we  chiefly  mourn  his  death,  not  as 
that  of  an  old  man  who  had  completed  his  task,  but  as  that 
of  the  youngest  man  among  us, —  youngest  because,  after 
all  that  he  had  done,  he  still  had  so  much  more  laid  out  to 
do  than  any  of  us,  and  still  was  competent  to  do  it ;  that 
the  best  service  that  we  can  do  his  memory  is  to  take  up  his 
work  where  he  was  forced  to  drop  it,  carry  it  on  with  all  that 
we  can  summon  of  his  energy  and  indomitable  will,  and,  as 
old  age  creeps  upon  us,  not  lay  the  harness  off,  but,  following 
his  example  and  Emerson's  advice,  "obey  the  voice  at  eve 
obeyed  at  prime." 


ON  PICKET  DUTY. 

"  Every  man's  labor,"  says  the  New  York  Nation,  "is 
worth  what  some  other  man  will  do  it  equally  well  for,  and  no 
more."  That  is  to  say,  if  one  man  demands  for  his  labor  the 
whole  product  thereof,  he  cannot  have  it  because  some  other 
man  is  satisfied  to  perform  the  same  labor  for  half  of  the 
product.  But  in  that  case  what  becomes  of  the  other  half  of 
the  product  ?  Who  is  entitled  to  it,  and  what  has  he  done  to 
entitle  him  to  it  ?  Every  man's  labor  is  worth  what  it  pro- 
duces, and  would  command  that,  if  all  men  were  free. 
"  There  is  no  natural  rate  for  telegraphers  any  more  than 
for  bookkeepers  or  teamsters,"  continues  the  Nation.  No 
more,  truly  ;  but  just  as  much.  The  natural  rate  of  wages 
for  ten  hours  of  telegraphing  or  bookkeeping  or  teaming  is  as 
much  money  as  will  buy  goods  in  the  market  for  the  produc- 
tion of  which  ten  hours  of  equally  tiresome  and  disagreeable 
labor  were  required.  And  this  natural  rate  would  be  the 
actual  rate  if  unlimited  competition  were  allowed  in  every- 
thing. That  competition  is  a  potent  factor  in  the  regulation 
of  wages  we  admit,  but  what  we  further  assert  is  that,  if  com- 


494 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


petition  were  universal  and  applied  to  capitalists  as  well  as 
laborers,  it  would  regulate  wages  in  accordance  with  equity. 
All  that  we  ask  is  absolutely  free  play  for  the  economists' 
boasted  law  of  supply  and  demand.  Why  are  the  capitalists 
so  afraid  of  the  logical  extension  of  their  own  doctrines  ? — 
Liberty,  August  25,  1883. 

Taking  generals  as  they  go,  I  have  always  held  Robert  E. 
Lee  in  moderately  high  esteem,  but,  if  Jubal  Early  tells  the 
truth,  this  opinion  must  be  revised  and  perhaps  reversed. 
Trying  to  relieve  Lee  from  that  horrible  aspersion  on  his 
character  which  attributes  to  Grant's  magnanimity  at  Appo- 
mattox Lee's  retention  of  his  sword,  Early  declares  that  Lee 
and  all  his  officers  were  allowed  by  the  express  terms  of  the 
capitulation  to  retain  their  side-arms,  and  further  (citing  Dr. 
Jones's  "  Personal  Reminiscences  of  General  R.  E.  Lee ") 
that  Lee  once  said  tq  Jones  and  other  friends,  and  in  1869  to 
Early  himself,  that,  before  going  to  meet  Grant,  he  left  or- 
ders with  Longstreet  and  Gordon  to  hold  their  commands  in 
readiness,  as  he  was  determined  to  cut  his  way  through  or 
perish  in  the  attempt,  if  such  terms  were  not  granted  as  he 
thought  his  army  entitled  to  demand."  That  is  to  say,  Gen- 
eral Lee,  having  determined  that  it  would  be  folly  to  make 
his  men  fight  longer  for  his  cause,  made  up  his  mind  to  sur- 
render, but  decided  at  the  same  time  that  he  would  cause  his 
men  to  die  by  the  thousands  rather  than  submit  himself  and 
his  officers  to  a  slight  personal  humiliation.  He  was  willing 
to  swallow  the  camel,  but,  rather  than  stomach  the  gnat,  he 
would  murderahis  fellow-men  without  compunction.  All  con- 
siderations fall  before  superstition,  be  the  superstition  relig- 
ious, political,  or  military.  The  art  of  war,  on  which  govern- 
ment finally  rests,  has,  like  government  itself,  its  laws  and 
regulations  and  customs,  which,  in  the  eyes  of  the  military 
devotee,  must  be  observed  at  all  hazards.  Beside  them  hu- 
man life  is  a  mere  bagatelle.  Man  himself  may  be  violated 
with  impunity,  but  man-made  laws  and  customs  are  inviolably 
enshrined  in  the  Holy  of  Holies. — Liberty,  April  n,  1885. 

An  idea  for  a  cartoon,  which  Puck  probably  will  not 
utilize  :  Grover  Cleveland  in  the  White  House  with  his  new 
and  legal  wife  ;  to  the  right,  in  a  companion  picture,  George 
Q.  Cannon  in  a  prison  cell ;  to  the  left  of  the  White  House, 
Maria  Halpin,  Cleveland's  illegal  wife,  and  their  illegitimate 
son,  dwelling  as  social  outcasts  in  an  abode  of  wretchedness 
and  want  because  wilfully  abandoned  by  the  husband  and 
father  ;  to  the  right  of  the  prison,  Cannon's  illegal  wives  and 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


495 


illegitimate  children,  dwelling  in  an  abode  of  wretchedness 
and  want  because  the  law  has  imprisoned  the  husband  and 
father  instead  of  allowing  him  to  live  with  and  protect  them  ; 
on  the  walls  of  the  White  House,  illuminated  texts  concern- 
ing the  purity  of  the  home  and  exclusiveness  of  love,  taken 
from  the  president's  message  to  congress  on  the  Mormon 
question  ;  on  the  walls  of  the  prison  cell,  the  constitutional 
amendment  forbidding  the  passage  of  laws  abridging  religious 
freedom.  Title  for  the  cartoon  :  "  Mormonism  in  Cleveland's 
eyes,  like  the  tariff  in  Hancock's,  a  purely  local  question." — 
Liberty,  June  19,  1886. 

Work  and  Wages  sneers  at  the  paradise  of  cheapness  of 
which  Edward  Atkinson  and  other  economists  boast,  but 
which  is  achieved  by  the  reduction  of  wages  to  a  very  low 
point,  as  a  fools'  paradise.  It  is  right.  But  its  own  paradise 
of  dearness,  to  be  achieved  by  the  determination  of  individu- 
als to  pay  more  than  the  market  value  for  products  and 
thereby  rob  themselves,  is  equally  a  fools'  paradise,  if  not 
more  so.  For,  while  it  is  true,  as  Work  and  Wages  claims, 
that  cheapness  is  achieved  at  the  cost  of  injury  to  health  and 
mind  and  morals  and  therefore  to  productive  power,  it  is  also 
true,  as  the  economists  claim,  that  the  payment  of  higher 
than  market  prices  causes  a  loss  of  capital,  stifles  enterprise, 
and  makes  wages  even  lower  than  before.  The  wise  men's 
paradise  is  that  in  which  the  market  value  of  products  is  equal 
to  the  wages  paid  to  the  labor  (of  all  sorts)  expended  in  their 
creation,  and  it  can  be  achieved  only  by  the  total  abolition  of 
those  checks  upon  the  supply  of  capital  which  States  have 
imposed  and  economists  have  justified  for  the  purpose  of 
keeping  wages  at  a  point  low  enough  to  sustain  capitalists  in 
luxury  and  yet  not  quite  low  enough  to  immediately  "  kill  the 
goose  that  lays  the  golden  egg."  In  that  paradise  there  will 
i>e  no  sentimental  endeavor  to  pay  high  prices,  but  all  will 
buy  as  cheaply  as  they  can,  the  difference  between  that  state 
and  this  being  the  vital  one  that  then  the  unimpeded  circula- 
tion of  capital  will  enable  labor  to  buy  its  wages  for  much  less 
than  it  now  pays  for  them.  The  tendency  to  cheapness  of 
product  being  thus  balanced  by  a  tendency  to  dearness  of 
labor,  the  displacement  of  monopoly  and  charity,  those  pa- 
rents of  pauperism,  by  competition  and  equity  will  give  birth 
to  an  entirely  new  economic  condition  in  which  industry  and 
comfort  will  be  inseparable. — Liberty,  May  28,  1887. 

Jusy  the  London  organ  of  semi-individualism,  combats  the 
doctrine  that  surplus  value — oftener  called  profits — belongs  to 


INSTEAD  OF  A  BOOK. 


the  laborer  because  he  creates  it,  by  arguing  that  the  horse, 
by  a  parity  of  reasoning,  is  rightfully  entitled  to  the  surplus 
value  which  he  creates  for  his  owner.  So  he  will  be  when  he 
has  the  sense  to  claim  and  the  power  to  take  it  ;  for  then  the 
horse  will  be  an  individual,  an  ego.  This  sense  and  power 
the  laborer  is  rapidly  developing,  with  what  results  the  world 
will  presently  see.  The  argument  of  Jus  is  based  upon  the 
assumption  that  certain  men  are  born  to  be  owned  by  other 
men,  just  as  horses  are.  Thus  its  reductio  ad  absurdum  turns 
upon  itself  ;  it  is  hoist  with  its  own  petard. — Liberty,  July  2, 
1887. 

In  the  silly  speech  which  Colonel  Ingersoll  made  at  an  in- 
formal session  of  the  Republican  convention  at  Chicago  he 
declared  that  he  favored  protection  of  American  industries 
because  the  Americans  are  the  most  ingenious  people  on  the 
face  of  the  earth.  By  the  ordinary  mind  this  will  naturally 
be  regarded  as  a  reason  why  other  people  should  be  protected 
rather  than  the  American.  It  requires  the  wit  of  an  Ingersoll 
to  see  that  it  is  either  necessary  or  advisable  to  protect  the 
ingenious  against  the  dull-witted,  the  strong  against  the  weak. 
—Liberty,  July  7,  1888. 

To  Edward  Atkinson's  perfectly  sound  argument  that  the 
present  accumulation  of  money  in  the  United  States  treasury 
does  not  constitute  a  surplus  revenue,  inasmuch  as  there  are 
$250,000,000  of  demand  notes  outstanding  against  the  United 
States  for  the  payment  of  which  no  provision  has  been  made, 
Henry  George's  Standard  makes  answer  by  asking  if  any  pri- 
vate corporation  would  "  ever  acknowledge  that  it  had  any 
surplus  revenue  if  it  possessed  an  unlimited  power  of  levying 
taxes  on  sixty  odd  millions  of  people."  If  Mr.  Atkinson  were 
not  as  blind  as  Mr.  George  himself  to  the  wickedness  of  this 
power  of  taxation,  he  would  doubtless  retort  with  the  ques- 
tion :  "Would  any  highwayman  ever  acknowledge  that  he 
had  any  surplus  revenue  if  he  possessed  an  unlimited  power 
of  robbing  travellers  with  impunity?" — Liberty,  July  7,  1888. 

"  There  are  two  things  needed  in  these  days,"  says  sagacious 
Edward  Atkinson:  "first,  for  rich  men  to  find  out  how  poor 
men  live  ;  and,  second,  for  poor  men  to  know  how  rich  men 
work."  You  are  right,  Mr.  Atkinson  ;  and  when  the  poor  men 
once  know  this,  the  rich  men  will  very  speedily  find  themselves 
out  of  a  job.  It  will  be  the  greatest  lock-out  on  record.— 
Liberty,  August  4,  1888. 


INDEX. 


Abolition,  Ball's  appreciation  ot,  53. 
of  interest,  194. 

of  currency,  effect  of,  on  capital,  219. 
of  the  State,  effect  of,  on  rent,  323. 
of  the  State,  meaning  of,  104. 
Abolitionists,  the  credit  due  them,  112, 
"3« 

political.  Anarchists  are,  54. 
Abundance  of  capital,  effect  of,  on  in- 
terest, 219. 
Actions,  consequences  of,  borne  by  the 

actors,  139. 
Advantage  of  location  differs  from  ad- 
vantage conferred  by  law,  338. 
Advisability  of  violence,  70,  71. 
Age  of  consent.  Anarchism  and,  149,  150. 
B.  O.  Flower  on,  168. 
proposition  to  raise,  161. 
Aggression,  authority  as  a  weapon  of, 
458. 

T.  B.  Robinson  on,  68. 

liberty  and,  72-78. 

State  originated  in,  75. 

(See  also  Compulsory  co-operation, 
Government,  Invasion,  State,  Tyr- 
anny.) 

Agreements  of  laborers  not  to  unite,  163. 
Alexander  of  Russia  and  taxation,  161. 
"American  Architect  "  on  the  discharge 

of  workmen,  171. 
A  nalogy  between  prohibition  and  tariff, 

118,  119. 

Anarchism  cannot  be  harmonized  with 
the  single  tax,  346. 
defined  by  Pentecost,  363-365. 
definition  of,  9. 

enforcement  of  law  under,  312. 
the  fundamental  principle  of  social  life, 
80. 

is  consistent  Manchesterism,  404,  405. 

a  misinterpretation  of,  38-40. 

moral  law  of,  15.  _ 

not  constructive,  ixt. 

the  only  true  Socialism,  363. 

the  opposite  of  Archism,  325. 

property  under,  300-312. 

questions  about,  by  S.  Blodgett,  55-67. 

State  Socialism  and,  3-18. 

(See  also  Authority.  Capital.  Commu- 
nism, Competition.  Co-operation,  De- 
mocracy, Freedom,  Government 
labor,  Liberty,  State,  State  Social- 
ism.) 

Anarchistic  journals  asked  to  expose  the 

fire-bugs,  433. 
Anarchistic  Socialism  will  abolish  usury, 

404. 


Anarchists  are  Jeffersonians,  14. 
cannot  be  K.  of  L.,  481. 
cannot  expect  justice  from  the  State, 

444-446. 
mission  of  the,  22. 
not  afraid  of  their  principles,  41. 
not  Communists,  16,  390-393. 
not  Malthusians,  465-469. 
on  land,  299,  300;  351. 
refuse  to  sustain  monopoly,  341. 
(See  also  Chicago  Communists.) 
Anarchy  cannot  be  sustained  by  force, 

427,  428. 
cannot  come  by  force,  427,  428. 
Chas.  O'Conor  a  believer  in,  489,  490. 
Democracy  and,  159. 
etymology  of,  112. 
has  never  existed,  329,  330. 
how  often  used  in  the  bad  sense,  309. 
means  order,  391. 
necessarily  atheistic,  463-465. 
Proudhon's  use  of  the  word,  391. 
will  minimize  unsocial  conduct,  144. 
would  be  established  by  evolution,  49. 
I  Andrews,  S.  P.,  "Nature  of  Money,1' 

276-278. 
on  Spencer,  370,  371. 
I  Answering  correspondents  immediately, 

reason  for,  69. 
Anti-monopolist  on   the  mail  service, 

125. 

"Anti-State  Theorists,"  by  B.  W.  Ball, 
52- «. 

"Apex  "  on  interest,  189. 

on  usury-,  190,  191. 
Appleton,  Henry,  on  Socialism,  483-487. 

State  is  the  enemy,  106-109. 
Arbitration,  compulsory,    tyranny  of, 
172,  173- 

Archism,  the  opposite  of  Anarchism, 
325. 

"Arena,''1  editor  of.  (See  Flower,  B.  O.) 
Arson,  Communists  have  no  excuse  for 

committing,  439. 
A  rtificial  monopolies  should  be  abolished , 

332»  333- 

Assault,  child's  right  to  immunity  from, 
144. 

Associations  for  defence,  25. 
voluntary,  how  they  can  tree  land,  311, 
312. 

(See  also  Defensive  association.  Protec- 
tion, State,  Voluntary  associations.) 
Atheism  of  Gambettu  opposed  to  liberty, 
30. 

Atkinson,       debate  with  Greene,  283. 
insurance  company  of,  281,  282. 

497 


498 


INDEX. 


Atkinson,  E.,  on  the  rich  and  pocr,  496. 
on  U.  S.  Treasury,  4^0. 
rational  finance,  282-284. 
Work  and  Wages,  on,  495. 
Authorities,    Chicago,    crazed    by  the 

bomb,  441,  442. 
Authority  as  a  weapon  of  aggression, 
458. 

contrasted  with  free  contract,  27-29. 
divorce  laws  a  recognition  of,  320. 
human,  more  to  be  feared  than  divine, 

30,  31. 

individual  sovereignty  has  no  alterna- 
tive but,  376. 

representing  State  Socialism,  4. 

trade  unions  believe  in,  458. 

what  it  will  do,  348. 

(See   also    Despotism,  Government, 
State,  Tyranny.) 
Aveling,  E.,  on  private  property,  378, 
379. 

self -contradictory  definitions,  378. 

Babcock,f.  M.  L.,  on  compulsory  profit- 
sharing,  179. 
defence  of  capital,  180. 
on  interest,  186. 
Bailie,  William,  compulsory  education, 
M3- 

Bakounine,  Michael,  on  God.  14. 

on  tyranny  of  science,  155,  156. 
Balance  of  trade,  protectionists  on  the, 

292,  293. 

Ball,  B.  W.,  "  Anti-State  Theorists,"  52. 
Ballot,  Anarchism  hostile  to,  169. 

no  remedy,  415. 

not  a  test  of  truth,  82. 

object  of  the,  82. 

Pentecost's  belief  in,  426,  427. 

a  representative  of  force,  426,  427. 
Ballots  and  Bullets,  Pentecost's  address 

on,  426,  427. 
Bank  of  Exchange,  Proudhon's,  288. 
Bank  of  France,  Proudhon  on  the,  196, 
197. 

Bank  of  the  People,  Proudhon's  real 

ideal,  288. 
Bankers  lend  no  capital,  206. 
Banking,  English  law  on,  226. 

free  trade  in,  227-234. 

Henry  George  on,  126. 

monopoly,  the,  interest  rests  on,  217. 

1  See  also  Banks,  Borrowing,  Lending.) 
Banking  transaction,  a,  220. 
Bankingtransactions,  no  lending  of  capi- 
tal in,  220,  221. 
"  Basis'1''  believes  in  saving,  191. 

on  interest,  191-193. 

defines  money,  192. 
Bastiat,  F.,  fable  of  the  plane  and  the 
plank,  181,  182. 

discussion  with  Proudhon,  196,  197. 
Bax,  E.  B.,  on  legality,  428. 
"  Beast  of  Property,''''  Most  on,  429. 
Bell  Telephone  Co.,  a  monopoly,  167. 
Bellamy  E.,  on  the  labor  problem,  473, 
474- 

Benton,  E.  H.,  on  greenbacks,  284,  285. 

on  secured  money,  284,  285. 
Bequest  to  Henry  George,  164. 
Berkman,  A.,  attempt  of,  on  Frick's  life, 

4S6, 


Bilgram,  Hugo,  on  credit-money,  263. 
defines  capital,  263,  264. 
on  Frick,  457. 

"  Involuntary  Idleness,'"  262,  263. 

on  mutual  banks,  265,  266. 

right  of  ownership,  129,  130. 

on  the  single  tax,  264. 

on  trades  unions,  457. 
Bishop,  Mr.,  on  bribery  at  elections,  47. 
Blackmail and  boycott,  161,  162. 
Blodgett,  S.,  puzzled  by  the  word  "  inva- 
sion," 66. 

questions  on  Anarchism,  55-67. 
Blunt,  W.  S.,  on  courage,  422. 
Bolt,  the  right  to,  160. 
Borrower,  relation  of,  to  lender,  193,  194. 
Borrowing  will  ceast  under  Anarchy,  211. 

effects  of,  293. 

H.  George  on,  205. 

(See  also  Banking,  Lending.) 
Boycott  and  blackmail,  161,  62. 

and  its  limit,  152-154. 

(See  also  Force.) 
Bravery  sustained  at  the  cost  of  truth, 
1  446. 
Bribery  at  elections,  47. 
Brick  Pomeroy,    (See  Pomeroy,  M.  N.) 
Brown,  A.  B,  on  rights  of  labor,  185. 
Brute  force  not  the  best  influence,  59. 
\  Butler,  B.,  hypocrisy  of,  425-426. 

letter  of  acceptance  of,  424-426. 
Butterine,  law  in  Pennsylvania  concern- 
ing, 170. 

j  Byington,  S.  T.,  on  economic  rent,  343, 
344- 

on  the  liberty  to  use  land,  348,  349. 
on  property,  348,  349. 
on  taxation,  348,  349. 

Capital,  abundance  of,  effect  of,  on  inter- 
est, 217. 

and  money,  215,  216. 

and  money,  difference  between,  193. 

and  product  identical,  10,  196. 

and  product,  State  Socialism  distin- 
guishes, 7. 

and  skill,  difference  between,  202. 

as  usurious  in  country  as  in  town,  114. 

borrowing  of,  191. 

compensation  for  use  of,  189. 

decrease  of,  197. 

defence  of,  by  J.  M.  L.  Babcock,  180. 
defined  by  Bilgram,  263,  264. 
George  denies  the  need  of,  294,  313. 
how,  can  be  made  free,  521. 
interest  not  paid  for  the  use  of,  219, 
220. 

is  not  borrowed,  194. 

mutualism  in  the  service  of,  281,  282. 

nature  of,  221- 

necessity  for  a  great  quantity  of,  dis- 
puted, 394,  395. 
needs  no  payment,  184. 
none  needed  by  a  mutual  bank,  286,  287, 

295- 

not  lent  by  bankers,  206. 

privileged,  the  first  point  of  attack,  465. 

Prof.  Sumner  on  labor's  lack  of,  372. 

reward  of,  289,  290. 
Capital  punishment,  156,  157. 
i   Capitalists  deniers  of  liberty,  454. 
I      privileges  of.  460,  461, 


INDEX.  _ 


499 


Carlyle,  T.,  compares  laborers  with 
slaves,  460. 

Census-taking,  bad  effect  of,  on  monop- 
oly, 461-463. 

Centralization  of  population,  benefit  of, 
114. 

Chevalet,  £.,  "La  Question  Sociale," 
402,  403. 

Chicago    authorities    crazed    by  the 

bomb,  439-442. 
Chicago,  bomb-throwing,  439-442. 
Chicago  Communists,  agreement  with 
Kropotkine,  386-393. 

convicted  for  their  opinions,  447,  448. 

courage  and  devotion  of  the,  386. 

execution  of.  449. 

methods  of  the,  387,  388,  419. 

not  Anarchists,  ixx,  445. 

socialistic  creed  of  the,  387-390. 
Chicago  jury,  how  selected,  443. 
Chicago  trial,  Fowler  on,  444-446. 
Chicago   "Unity"    on  Topolobampo 

colony,  166. 
Child  an  individual,  146. 
Children  belong  to  their  mothers,  147- 

communistic  possession  of,  148. 

rearing  of,  not  compulsory,  138. 

rearing  of,  under  Anarchism,  15. 

rights  of,  134-146. 
Christians  escape  investigation,  137. 
Church  an  object  of  derision,  31. 

and  State,  education  intrusted  to,  140. 

and  State,  resemblance  between,  159, 
160. 

and  State,  twin  leeches  of,  140. 
decline  of  the,  30. 

militant,  why  it  did  not  triumph,  407. 

power  of  control  in  the,  75. 

power  of  the,  75. 

still  possesses  privileges,  85. 
Church  work,  must  be  voluntary,  85. 
Churches  may  exist  under  Anarchism, 
85. 

Circulation  of  money  illustrated,  220,  285. 
Cities  not  destined  to  disappear,  345. 
Civilization  and  government,  158. 
Claims  0/ capital  to  increase,  183-185. 
Cleveland,  Grover,  on  Mormonism,  494, 
„  495- 

Spooner  s  letter  to,  48. 
Cobden,  Richard,  on  competition,  12. 
Coercion  should  be  abolished,  40. 
Collectivists  and   the   term  Socialism, 
369- 

Colonization,  E.  C.  Walker  on,  423,  424. 

no  remedy,  114. 
Command,  highly  evolved  parents  will 
not,  142. 

Commodity.    (See  Product,  Wages.) 
Common  grave,  Communists  oppose  a, 
408. 

Cotnmunism  a  form  of  robbery,  248. 
is  a  form  of  State,  1x1. 
Most's  lack  of  faith  in,  399, 
Proudhon  on,  391-393. 
a  State  needed  to  maintain,  399,  400. 
(See     also     Anarchism,  Authority, 
Capital,  Competition,  Co-operation, 
Democracy,  Freedom,  Government, 
Labor.  Liberty,  State.) 
Communism,  beast  of.  429-433. 


Communist  teachings,  effect  of,  430. 
Communistic  possession  of  children,  148. 
Communists  have  no  excuse  for  commit- 
ting arson,  439. 

not  Anarchists,  16,  390-393,  430. 

opposed  to  purchase,  403,  404. 

opposition  to  a  common  grave,  408. 

on  private  property.  430. 
Communists,  Chicago,  methods  of  the, 
419' 

Communities,  reform,  cannot  test  prin- 
ciples, 423. 

Community  has  no  right  to  the  land,  330, 
33i- 

a  nonentity,  330. 
Compensation  lor  use  of  capital,  189. 
Competition  fatal  to  usury,  344,  345. 

in  letter-carrying,  121. 

interest  reduced  by,  196. 

is  not  war,  404,  405. 

the  leveller  of  prices,  9. 

limited  by  taxes,  123. 

now  one-sided,  9. 

reduces  interest,  it,  204. 

unrestricted,  the  truest  co-operation, 
405- 

value  of  protection  under,  327. 

(See  also  Co-operation,  Free  competi- 
tion, Free  trade,  Freedom,  Laissez 
faire.) 

Competitive  protection,  value  of,  326,  327. 
Compromise  is  right,  44. 
Morley  on,  425,  426. 
when  we  must,  46. 
"  Compulsion  by  the  State,''''  right  and 

wrong  of,  by  A.  Herbert,  469. 
Compulsion,  every  form  of,  tried,  274. 
Compulsory  arbitration,  tyranny  of,  172, 
173- 

Compulsory  Communism,  Lingg  and  his 

comrades  believe  in,  445. 
Compulsory  co-operation,  is  it  desirable  ? 

102. 

is  never  justified,  105. 
Compulsory  education   not  anarchistic, 
134-136. 
under  Anarchy,  143. 
Compulsory    institutions,  punishment 

inflicted  by,  156. 
Compulsory  money,  Pinney's  apology  for. 
117. 

Conception  of  invasion,  71,  72. 
Concession,  labor  loses  by  foolish,  184. 
Conflict,  physical,  probability  of,  329. 
Consent.    (See  Age  of  consent.) 
Conspiracy  not  necessarily  invasive,  154. 

the  State  a,  75. 
Constructive,  Anarchism  is  not,  nx. 

reform,  necessity  for,  106-109. 
Consumption,  definition  of,  236,  237. 

economic,  244,  245. 
Contract,  the  limit  of  usefulness  of,  48. 

why  men,  350. 

or  organism,  31-33. 

(See  also  Freedom  of  contract.) 
Contracts  enforced  by  voluntary  associa 
tions,  342,  343. 

"Jus  "  on  Parliament's  right  to  repudi- 
ate its,  151,  152. 

rights  created  by,  146. 

the  ric^ht  to  break,  50. 
Co-operation  must  be  voluntary,  41. 


500 


IN  I  )KX. 


Co-operation,  not  necessarily  State  social- 
istic, 99. 

true,  identical  with  competition,  405. 
(See  also  Competition,  Compulsory  co- 
operation, Voluntary  co-operation.) 
Co-operators  build    play-houses   in  the 

wilderness,  419. 
Copyright,  Henry  George  on,  126-129. 
on  Wagner's  "  Parsifal,'1  171,  172. 
(See  also  Patent  monopoly.) 
Corporal  punishment,  folly  of,  142. 
Correspondents,  reason  for  answering, 

immediately,  69. 
Corruption,  political,  weekly  Star  on, 

164,  165. 
Cost  the  just  price,  403. 
the  limit  of  price,  6,  200. 
oflabor,  307. 

of  mutual  banking,  268,  269. 
of  mutual  banking,  Bilgram  on,  265, 
266. 

of  mutual  banking,  by  whom  borne, 

265-269. 

Cost  principle  and  free  money.  286,  287. 

Lazarus  on,  305. 

only  needs  liberty,  286,  287. 

should  not  be  realized  by  denying 
liberty,  332,  333. 

Warren  the  father  of,  307. 
Courage,  Blunt  on,  422. 
Credit,  Anarchism  would  free,  208. 

freedom  of,  197. 

freedom  of,  abolishes  interest,  209. 
how  to  organize,  287,  288. 
importance  of,  272. 
monopoly  prevents  the  use  of,  190. 
need  not  be  obtained  by  all,  398. 
organization  of,  190. 
reciprocity  of,  242. 

strengthened  by  voluntary  taxation,  36. 
stronger  in  a  voluntary  "  State,"  37. 
Credit-money,  attempts  at,  suppressed  by 
law,  243. 
Bilgram  on,  263. 

(See  also  Free  money,  Mutual  banks.) 
Crime,  the  right  to  witness,  41. 
Criminals  made  by  the  State,  26. 

punishment  of,  not  opposed,  52. 
Crystalline  customs,  A.  Herbert  on,  310, 

A.  Tarn  on,  309,  310. 
Currency,  contraction  of,  195. 
effect  of,  on  the  abundance  of  capital, 
219. 

enactments,  failure  of,  230. 
the  K.  of  L.  on  the,  290,  291. 
non-interest-bearing,  284-286. 
(See  also  Free  money,  Gold.) 
Currency  laws,  ignorance  concerning, 
237. 

Curtis,  T.  W.,  on  the  George  movement, 
316-318. 

on  the  laborer's  desire  for  society,  318. 
on  "  Progress  and  Poverty,"  317. 

Davidson,  Clara  Dixon,  on  education  by 
experience,  138. 
on  making  liars  of  children,  141. 
on  making  thieves  of  children,  142. 
relation  between  parents  and  children, 
136-142. 
Davitt,  M.,  on  land,  299. 


Death  always  possible,  138. 

Debt,  reciprocity  of,  242. 

Debts,  freedom  to  exchange,  Fisher  on, 

224. 

Decency  as  affected  by  music  halls,  96. 
Defence  0/  Capital,  by  Babcock,  180. 
Defence,  authority  as  a  weapon  of,  458. 

a  commodity,  33. 

differs  from  government,  23. 
Defensive  association  cannot  become  in- 
vasive, 43. 
Defensive  associations,  25. 

like  churches,  32. 

protect  all  invaded  persons,  36. 
Definitions,  the  importance  of,  84. 
Democracy  and  Anarchy,  159. 

the  new,  91. 
Democratic  doctrine,  "Egoist"  on,  337,338. 
Denslow.  Van  Buren,  on  the  reward  of 
capital,  289,  290. 

on  wages,  289. 
"  Der  Einzige  und  sein  Eigenthum ,"  by 

Caspar  Schmidt,  24. 
Desertion  of  children  not  invasion,  138. 
Desire,  the  invader's,  77. 
Despotism,  argument  of  its  friends,  250. 

(See  also  Government,  State,  Tyranny.) 
Despotisms  of  a  libertarian,  115. 
Dictionaries  on  Socialism,  365-369. 
Discount,  by  whom  paid,  267. 

(See  also  Interest,  Profits,  Usury.) 
Discount,  bank,  is  a  tax,  207. 
Discount  and  interest,  difference  between, 
212-214. 

Discounting  of  notes,  the,  221. 
Discovery  gives  no  right  to  ownership, 
127. 

Distinctions,  sociological,  cannot  always 

be  drawn,  81. 
Distribution  of  the  rent  of  skill,  342. 
Divine  authority  not  to  be  feared  as  much 

as  human,  30,  31. 
Division  of  labor,  Fisher  on,  224. 
Divorce  an  absurdity,  15. 

laws  a  recognition  of  authority,  320. 

Robert  Ingersoll  on,  165. 
Dogmatism,  when  justifiable,  225. 
Do7>i  Pedro  of  Brazil  and  taxation,  161. 
Domestic  economy,  Atkinson's  former  be- 
lief in,  284. 
Donisthorpe,  Wordstvorth,  on  co-opera- 
tion and  the  State,  99-103. 

misunderstanding  of  Anarchism,  38-40. 

woes  of  an  Anarchist,  86-97. 

woes  of,  moral  of,  98,  99. 
Doubtful  cases,  policy  for,  135. 
Duties,  rights  and,  under  Anarchy,  58,  60. 
Duty  discarded  by  Anarchists,  24. 

man's  only,  59. 

not  the,  of  children  to  obey,  142. 
Dynamite,  Powderly  on  the  use  of,  480. 

E.,  G.  W.,  on  a  new  law  of  equal  freedom, 

rights  of  children,  145. 
Economic  organism,  dissolution  of  State 

in  the,  104. 
Economic  rent,  Anarchists  do  not  deny 
the  existence  of,  12,  344. 
Byington  on,  343,  344. 
confiscation  of,  tyrannical,  346. 
freedom  will  diminish,  345. 


INDEX. 


Economic  superstitions  regarding  gold, 
260,  261. 

Economists.    (See  Political  economists.) 
Edgeworth.    (See  Lazarus,  M.  E.) 
Education  abandoned  by  parent,  140. 

by  experience,  138. 

higher,  Winsted  Press  on,  164. 

how  much,  necessary,  135. 

of  children,  136-142. 

Providence  People  on,  163. 

secure,  through  liberty,  146. 

State-regulated,  is  despotic,  89. 
Educational  endeavors,  failures  of,  139. 
Egoism,  "  Egoist  "  on,  333. 

(See  also  Rights,  Might.) 
"  Egoist"  on  authority,  324. 

on  competitive  protection,  326. 

denies  equity,  334,  335. 

on  economic  rent,  328,  329. 

on  egoism,  333,  334. 

on  enlightened  self-interest,  338. 

on  H.  George.  322. 

on  land  occupancy,  324,  325,  339,  340. 

on  the  occupancy  title  to  land,  334. 

on  Ricardo's  theory  of  rent,  322. 

on  rights,  324. 

on  skill,  333,  334. 

on  a  standard  of  value,  258. 

on  voluntary  association,  339,  340. 
Egoistic  position  on  rights,  210,  211. 
Egoists,  Anarchists  are,  24. 
Elections,  bribery  at,  47. 
Electricity  will  extract  gold  from  sea 

water,  259,  260. 
Elements  common  to  all  States,  22. 
Ely,  R.  T.,  "  French  and  German  Social- 
ism,'1 383,  384. 
Emergencies,  what  is  meant  by,  413. 
Employers  and  non-union  men,  163. 
Encyclopedias'1  definitions  of  Socialism, 
365-369- 

Enforcement  0/ social  conventions,  64. 
England,  laiv  of,  on  banking,  226. 
Equal  freedom  applied  to  children,  145. 

between  parents  and  children,  135. 

Herbert  Spencer  on,  137. 
Equal  liberty,  S.  Blodgett's  ignorance 
concerning,  63-66. 

is  not  equal  slavery,  65. 

a  social  convention,  62. 
Equal  slavery,  equal  liberty  is  not,  67. 
Equity  regarding  product  and  wage,  241. 
Etymology  of  Anarchy,  112. 
Evening  Post,  N.   Y.,  not  an  extreme 

free-trader,  296. 
Evolution  defined,  51. 

towards  Anarchy,  37. 

would  establish  Anarchy,  49. 
Exchange,  illustration  of,  220. 
Exchange  of  credits  performed  by  banks, 
194. 

Exchange  of  labor  is  a  sale,  303. 
Exchange  values,  money  used  to,  190. 
Executions  of  Chicago  Communists,  448, 
449- 

Existing  Slate,  protest  against,  is  Anar- 
chistic, in. 

Expediency  not  necessarily  selfish,  64. 
social,  the  only  right,  130. 

Experience,  education  of  children  by,  138. 

Exploitation,    freedom    of   credit  will 
abolish.  398. 


>  Express  companies  as  mail  carriers,  120- 
125-  ^ 

'  Expression,  literary.  (See  Literary  ex- 
pression.) 

I  Expropriation,  Communism  means,  387, 
388. 

Kropotkine  on,  388. 
Extravagant  claims,  definition  of,  184. 

Failure  of  currency  enactments,  230. 
Fair  Play^s  defence  of  the  K.  of  L.,  480, 
481 

Familisterre  at  Guise,  483-487. 
Family,  Anarchists  believe  in  the,  85. 

experiment  in,  85. 

Wm.  T.  Harris  on  the,  85. 
Farming,   few  should  engage  in,  273, 
274. 

Federation,  J urassian,  390. 
Fetish,  labor's  new,  424,  425. 
Fetishes,  political,  all,  alike,  425,  426. 
Finance,  Atkinson  on,  282-284. 

Galveston  News  teaches  rational,  284. 

TrumbuL  on,  279. 

(See  also    Banking,   Capital,  Credit, 
Currency,  Exchange,  Gold,  Money, 
Standard  of  Value.) 
Fines  as  invasive  as  imprisonment,  119. 
Fire-bugs  defended  by  Most,  434. 
exposed  by  Liberty,  429-433. 
newspapers  asked  to  expose  them,  433. 
N.  Y.  Sun  on,  435-439. 
Fisher,  f.  Greevz,  his  assertions  untrue, 
236,  237. 

his  belittling  of  mutual  money,  223-226. 

on  consumption,  240,  241. 

on  the  consumption  of  gold,  223,  224. 

on  equality  of  wage  and  product,  238. 

on  the  evils  of  coinage,  236. 

on  Greene,  239,  240. 

ignorant  of  finance,  242. 

on  the  power  of  government  to  fix 
value,  222,  223. 

on  Westrup,  227-229. 
Flower,  B.  O.,  on  the  age  of  consent,  168. 
Folly  the  worst  enemy,  456. 
Force,  ballot  a  representative  of,  426,  427. 

cannot   establish   Anarchy,   427,  428. 

cannot  maintain  Anarchy,  427,  428. 

no  use  of,  against  the  non-invasive,  98. 

not  the  best  influence,  59. 

physical,  no  remedy,  415. 

social  revolution  cannot  be  achieved 
by,  439- 

Swain  on,  440,  441. 

use  of,  a  last  resort,  397. 

(See  also  Dynamite,  Resistance,  Revo- 
lution, Violence.) 
Foreigners,   morality   of,   compared  to 
American,  462,  463. 

the  most  moral,  are  socialistic,  463. 
11  Fors  Clavigera,"  Ruskin,  John,  extract 

from,  181-183. 
Fortunes,  great,  George  on,  354. 
Foster,  F.  K.,  on  the  labor  problem.  475, 

476.  '  .  , 

Foster,/.  Herbert,  on  capital,  215. 

interest  and  discount,  212-214. 

on  money,  215. 

sympathy  of,  for  capital  misplaced, 
216. 

on  Westrup,  215. 


INDEX. 


Foiv/er,  C.  T.,  on  the  Chicago  trial,  444- 

446. 
The  Sun,  419. 
France,  Bank  of,  Proudhon  on  the.  196, 

197. 

Free,  different  uses  of  the  word,  295. 
Free  banking  and  free  trade,  292,  293. 

immediate  practicability  of,  251. 

will  increase  production,  243. 
Free  banks  different  from  State  banks, 
245,  246. 

safety  of,  249. 

'See  also  Land  banks,  Mutual  banks  ) 
Free  competition,  power  of,  279. 

reward  of  labor  under,  302. 

will  distribute  rent,  343. 

(.See  also  Competition.) 
Free  contract  contrasted  with  authority, 
27-29. 

Free  currency,  Greenbackers  on,  276. 
Free  labor  compared  to  slave,  460. 
Free  land  defined,  345,  346. 

insufficiency  of,  355,  356. 

no  solution  alone,  313. 

voluntary  association  protecting  users 
of,  311,  312. 
Free  market  fatal  to  usury,  344. 

right  to  a,  454. 
Free  money  and  the  cost  principle,  286, 
287. 

effect  of,  on  rent,  275. 

the  mos'  important  reform,  273,  274. 

(See  also  Free  banks,  Mutual  banks.) 
Freedom,  difficulties  to,  imaginary,  37. 

effect  of,  on  economic  rent,  345. 

to  exchange  debts,  Fisher  on,  224. 

incompatible  with  State  Socialism,  83. 

opposed  to  the  idea  of  God,  464,  465. 

principle  of,  must  be  established,  465. 

society  dependent  on,  83. 

Spooner's  work  for,  490-493. 

to  manufacture  money,  295. 

will  diminish  economic  rent,  345. 

(See  also  Liberty.) 
Freedom  of  contract,  N.  Y.  Nation  pre- 
tends to  believe  in,  460. 
Freedom  of  speech,  all  other  freedoms 
follow,  429. 

is  not  yet  denied,  397. 
Freedoms,  the  most  important,  denied, 
85- 

Freethinkers'"  Magazine,  T.  B.  Wakeman 

in,  154-156. 
Free  trade  in  all  things,  10. 
(See  also  Balance  of  trade,  Competi-  j 
tion,  Laissez  faire,  Protection.) 
Free  trade  in  banking,  227-234. 

its  effect  on  debt,  230,  231. 
Free  trader,  consistency  of,  295,  296. 
George  not  a  consistent,  319,  320. 
Sumner  not  a  consistent,  374. 
French,  H.f.,  ignorant  of  passive  resist- 
ance, 422. 

Frick,  H.  C,  attempt  on  the  life  of,  455, 
456. 

not  a  soldier  of  liberty,  457,  458. 

G.,f.,  defends  Marx,  375-377. 

on  41  Libertas,"  375-377. 
Galveston  News.    (See  News.) 
Gamble,  the  right  to,  272. 
Game  laws,  English,  92. 


Gary,foseph,  his  charge  to  the  jury,  443. 

on  a  "color-line  "  case,  450. 
George,  Henry,  believes  in  several  taxes, 
356,  357- 
on  banking,  126. 
bequest  to,  164. 
cannot  be  stumped,  355,  356. 
compared  land-holding  to  slavery,  351, 
352. 

on  the  comparison  of  land  with  news- 
papers, 354,  355. 
on  copyright,  126-129. 
criticised  by  J.  F.  Kelly,  319. 
debate  with  Shewitch,  321. 
denies  the  necessity  for  capital,  294, 
L.3i> 

his  ignorance  of  banking,  206. 
ignorant  of  the  power  of  competition, 
204. 

on  interest,  200-203. 
juggling  of,  126-129. 
on  land,  299. 

not  a  champion  of  free  speech,  449,  450. 
on  philanthropists,  353. 
remedy  similar  to  Nihilism,  315. 
on  the  sale  of  liquor,  165. 
on  skill,  201,  202. 
slander  of  mutualism,  281,  282. 
his  trouble  with  the  State  Socialists, 
3I5«  3!6- 

and  the  value  of  capital,  320,  321. 
God  and  freedom  incompatible,  464,  465. 

and  man  are  enemies,  464. 

a  puppet  for  a,  46-50. 
Godin,  social  palace  of,  483-487. 
Gold,  adherence  to,  a  religion,  261. 

consumed  when  used  as  currency,  233, 
234- 

demonetization  of,  259,  260. 
in  sea  water,  259,  260. 
value  of,  225-227. 

value  of,  and  mutual  banks,  231-234. 

variation  in  value  of,  unknown,  254. 
Gold  standard,  fallacy  of  a,  108. 
Government  defined,  70. 

definition  of,  23. 

differs  from  defence,  23. 

the  farce  of,  171. 

George's  pretence  of  simplifying  it, 

353- 

gradual  abolition  of,  desirable,  329. 

incompetency  of,  shown  in  the  fire-bug 
cases,  432,  433. 

is  invasion.  23.  61. 

Pentecost  an  abettor  of,  81,  82. 

power  of,  over  values,  222-226. 

prohibited  by  itself,  117. 

(See  also  Authority,  Compulsory  co- 
operation.   Defensive  association, 
State,  Voluntary  associations.) 
Governmental  competition,  Anarchists 

not  opposed  to,  123. 
Grant,  U.  S.,  an  abettor  of  theft,  159. 

obsequies  of,  159. 
Greenbacker,  position   of,  defined,  285, 
286. 

Greenbackers  on  free  currency,  276. 

ignorant  of  their  own  theory,  280. 

on  profit  sharing,  179. 

truths  taught  by,  248. 
Greene,  Wm.  £.,  debate  with  Atkinson, 
283. 


INDEX. 


503 


Greene,  Wm.  B.,  his  definition  of  money, 
231. 

on  merchandise  money,  232. 
on  mutual  money,  232. 
and  State  banks,  246. 
his  views  expounded,  243,  244. 
Guise,  social  palace  at,  484-487. 

Happiness,  equal  freedom  necessary  to, 

liberty  essential  to,  41. 
Harris,  Wm.  71,  an  incompetent  teacher, 
86. 

an  unconscious  Anarchist,  83. 
on  State  Socialism  and  Anarchism,  82. 
Haskell,  B.  G.,  on  H.  George,  315-316. 
Herald 0/ Anarchy,  error  of,  concerning 

prices,  258. 
Herald,  Boston,  on  "  Bolting,"  160. 
Herbert,  Auberon,  compared  to  Ruskin, 
470,  471. 

on  crystalline  customs,  310,  311. 
good  work  of,  for  liberty,  470. 
ignores  the  money  monopoly,  469-472. 
on  interest,  208. 

"Politician  in  Sight  of  Haven,'1  469-472. 
on  property  in  land,  310-312. 
his  relation  to  Anarchism,  103. 
thinks  interest  useful,  210. 
on  voluntary  taxation,  371. 
Homestead  strike,    N.  Y.  Sun  on  the, 

"  Honorius."    (See  Appleton,  Henry.) 
Horn,  W.  T ,  cannot  understand  freedom, 
406.  407. 
on  competition,  404-406. 
on  co-operation,  404,405. 
false  ethics  of,  406,  407. 
Howells,  William  Dean,  and  his  $10,000 
novel,  170. 

Hudspeth,  W.,  ignorance  of  liberty,  377, 
378. 

on  State  Socialism,  377,  378. 
Human  authority  more  to  be  feared  than 

divine,  30,  31. 
Hyndman,  H.  M.,  on  the  Manchester 
school,  379. 

Ideas,  political  economists  lack,  182. 
Idleness,  necessary,  must  be  paid,  203, 
204. 

Illinois  law  regarding  juries,  good  feat- 
ures in,  442,  443. 
Importance  of  middlemen,  292. 
Increase,  capital's  claim  to,  183. 

(See  also  Interest.) 
Increment.    (See  Unearned  increment.) 
Indemnity  not  rent,  303,  304. 
Individual  has  no  rights,  146. 

relation  of  the  State  to,  21-29 

sovereignty  of  the,  106. 
Individual  sovereignty  has  no  alterna- 
tive but  authority,  376. 

the  Open  Court  on,  131,  132. 
J ndii  iiiualisvt,  Appleton  on.  107. 

conditioned  by  liberty,  no. 

importance  of,  106-109. 

Jus  not  thorough  in  its,  152. 

misinterpretations  of,  112. 

Wilde  s  road  to,  379. 
"  Individualist,"  the,  and  the  new  abo- 
rtion, 133,  134. 


Individuality  impaired  by  State  Social- 
ism, 8. 

the  object  of  society,  83. 
Industrial  war,  how  to  prevent,  460,  461. 
Influences  that  work  for  morality,  57,  58. 
Ingalls,  J .  K.,  argument  against  money, 
270-272. 

on  credit,  270. 

on  free  money,  269-271. 

on  the  purchasing  price  of  labor,  270. 

on  value.  269. 
Ingersoll,  Robert,  on  divorce,  165. 

on  protection,  496. 
Inquisition  needed  for  the  single  tax, 
354- 

Institutions,  interdependency  of  various, 
*43- 

(See  also  Social  institutions.) 
Insufficiency  of  free  land,  355,  356. 
Insurance  and  interest,  189. 

mutual,  Atkinson  on,  281,  282. 

and  the  State,  difference  between,  100, 
fox. 

Intelligence  without  liberty,  137. 
Interest,  abolition  of,  194. 

and  civilization,  191-198. 

decrease  of,  197. 

defence  of,  180. 

definition  of,  213. 

and  discount,  difference  between,  212- 

214. 

discussion  between  Proudhon  and  Bas- 

tiat  on,  196,  197. 
Herbert  thinks  it  useful,  210. 
and  insurance,  189. 
low,  how  caused,  293. 
not  dependent  on  private  property,  218, 

219. 

not  paid  for  the  use  of  capital,  219, 
220. 

not  the  result  of  monopoly,  according 

to  George,  201. 
on  money  and  other  capital,  207. 
the  price  of  credit  under  monopoly,  190 

191. 

rate  of,  how  determined,  234 
reduced  by  competition,  n. 
the  result  of  monopoly,  197. 
and  sale,  difference  between,  188. 
a  tax  levied  by  monopoly,  221,  222. 
a  tax  on  transfer  papers,  214. 
is  unjust.  6. 
the  viability  of,  217. 
as  viewed  by  To-day,  217-220. 
(See  also  Discount,  Increase,  Profits, 
Usury  ) 

Interference,  means  of,  must  not  be  in- 
stituted, 104. 
Invader,  life  of  an,  not  sacred,  157. 
Invader's  desire  to  invade,  77. 
Invaders,  punishment  of,  55. 
Invasion,  Anarchists  enemies  of,  52. 

by  co  operative  societies,  102,  103. 

child's  right  to  immunity  from,  144. 

conspiracy  not  necessarily  an,  154. 

how  determined,  71,  72. 

not  easily  defined,  81. 

of  government,  23. 

prohibition  of,  167. 

resistance  to,  69-80. 

resistance  to  the  antithesis  of  govern- 
ment. 57. 


5°4 


INDEX. 


Invasion,  some  cases  of,  not  treated  by 
force,  104. 
tariff  an,  116. 
what  constitutes,  78. 
(See   also    Aggression,  Government, 
State,  Tyranny.) 
Invasion  and  ostracism,  the  difference 

between,  153., 
"  Investigator,'1''  Atlantic,  on  Anarchism, 
167. 

"  Involuntary  Idleness,''''  Hugo  Bilgram, 
262, 263. 
an  important  work,  262-265. 
Ireland,  its  road  to  freedom,  414,  415. 
Irish  situation  in  1881,  414,  415. 

Jails  not  inconsistent  with  Anarchism, 

77- 

not  the  only  promoters  of  virtue.  58. 
Jefferson,  Thos.f  on  government,  14. 
Joint  possession  of  children,  148. 
Jurassian  Federation   of  Switzerland, 

39°- 

Jury,  the  Chicago,  how  selected,  443. 

Jury,  how  selected,  56. 

Jury  law,  good  features  in  Illinois,  442, 

r  +43- 

Jury  service  under  Anarchy,  56. 
Jury  trial,  early  form  of,  62. 
Jus,  boycott  and  its  limits,  152-154. 

not  thorough  in  its  individualism,  152. 

on  rights  of  Parliament,  150-152. 

on  surplus  value,  495,  406. 
Justice  can  be  secured  from  imperfect 
people,  157,  158. 

securing  of,  157. 

Kelly,  G.  B.,  on  profit-sharing,  487. 
Kelly,  John  F.,  on  H.  George,  319. 
K.,  F.  F.,  possession  of  children,  147. 
Knights  of  Labor,  Anarchists  among  the, 
482,  483. 

on  the  currency,  290,  291. 

declaration  of  principles  of  the, opposed 
to  Anarchy,  482. 

as  a  liberty  training-school,  481-483. 

not  anarchistic,  290,  291. 

opposed  to  liberty,  480-483. 
Koopman,  H.  L.,  on  the  supply  of  gold, 

260,  261. 

Kropotkine,  Peter,  absurd  distinction  of 

rights  of,  407,  408. 
and  the  Chicago  Communists,  386-393. 
on  expropriation,  388. 
favors  easy  teaching  instead  of  true, 

408. 

on  private  property,  ^88. 

"  Words  of  a  Rebel,"  387-389. 

Labor  affected  by  reduction  of  interest, 
196. 

and  time,  204,  205. 

cornering,  better  than  cornering  capital, 

163. 
cost  of,  307. 

entitled  to  a  free  market,  454. 

how  deprived  of  its  earnings,  54. 

the  measure  of  price,  5. 

necessity  of  tools  for,  314,  315. 

price  of,  N.  Y.  Nation  on  the,  493,  494. 

its  product  is  its  wage,  6. 

purchasing  power  ot,  variable,  271,  272. 


Labor  should  be  saved  from  its  friends, 
455,  456. 
should  it  be  paid  ?  403,  404. 
slave,  compared  to  free,  460. 
unpaid,  the  Socialist  complaint,  403. 
(See  also  Skill,  Wages.) 
Labor  authoritarians,  457,  458. 
Labor  leaders  of  Boston,  opinion  of,  on 

the  labor  problem,  472-476. 
Labor  movement,  a  great  man  in  the, 
476. 

Labor  note,  Josiah  Warren's,  192. 
Labor  notes  based  on  all  products,  198. 

"  Basis  "  on,  192. 
Labor-press  laudations  of  Marx,  477. 
Labor  problem,  E.  Bellamy,  473,  474. 

Foster  on,  475,  476. 

B.  R.  Tucker  on,  474. 
various  solutions  of,  472-476. 

Laborer  does  not  receive  surplus  wealth, 

will  not  give  up  society,  314,  315. 
Laborers  are  soldiers,  460,  461. 
Labors  lack  of  capital,  Prof.  Sumner  on, 

372i    ■  u 
new  fetish,  424,  425. 

product  is  its  wage,  6. 

Laissez  faire,  absolute,  10. 

doctrine,  10. 

Sumner's  fear  of,  371-374. 
will  abolish  interest,  294. 
(See  also  Competition,  Free  trade  * 
Land,  Anarchists  on,  299,  300. 
as  a  basis  of  currency,  198. 
conditions  of  occupancy  of,  324-326. 
M.  Davit t  on,  299. 
distribution  of,  342,  343. 
freeing  of,  345,  346. 
H.  George  on,  299. 

holders  of,  ought  not  to  be  disturbed, 
332. 

McGregor  on,  273-275. 
the  only  just  title  to,  61. 

C.  S.  Parnell  on,  299. 

possession  of,  rests  on  various  motives, 
33°- 

not  a  product,  61. 
Land  Bank,  its  failure  would  injure  free 
banks,  279. 
Stanford's,  is  governmental,  278,  279. 
(See  also  Free  banks,  Mutual  banks.) 
Land-holding-  compared  to  slavery  by  H. 

George,  352.  . 
Land  League  an  anarchistic  organization, 
414,  415- 

a  passive-resistance  movement,  412,  413. 

Land  monopoly,  12. 

Land  occupancy,  "Egoist"  on,  324,  339, 
34°. 

Land  values,  Pentecost  on,  357. 
Lassalle,  F.,  on  passive  resistance,  413. 
Law,  flexibility  of,  under  Anarchy,  312. 
Law,  J.  B.  Robinson  on,  73. 
Law  of  competition,  credit  brought  under 
the,  178. 

Law  of  wages,  iron,  persists  under  mo- 
nopoly, 466. 
Law-breaking,  N.  Y.  Sun  on,  168,  169. 
Laws  on  currency,  237. 
Lawyers*  ignorance  of  currency  laws,237. 
Lazarus,  M.  E.,  economic  rent,  300-309. 
ignorance  of  the  cost  principle,  308. 


IXDKX. 


5°5 


Lazarus,  At.  E.,  on  Marx,  305. 

on  passive  resistance,  411,  412. 

on  Proudhon,  300,  301. 

on  Proudhon's  bank,  287,  288. 
Lee,  Robt.  E.,  superstitions  of,  494. 
Legal  tender,  what  constitutes,  285. 
Legality,  Bax  on,  428,  429. 
Lender,  relation  of,  to  borrower,  193,  194. 
Lending,  George  on,  205. 

will  cease  under  Anarchy,  208. 

(See  also  Banking,  Borrowing,  Inter- 
est.) 

Lesigne,  Ernest,  on  Socialism,  16-18. 
Lesson  of  Homestead,  453~455- 
Letter-carriers,  tax  on  private,  121. 
Letter-carrying,  private  associations  for, 
120-125. 

Le~y,  J.  ft.,  criticism  of,  40-43. 
on  A.  Herbert,  212. 
his  maximum,  40-43. 
misunderstanding  of  Anarchism.  38-40. 
"  Outcome  of  Individualism,"  38. 
recognizes  that  government  is  an  evil. 
38,  39- 

Lewis,  O.  P.,  on  Anarchy,  463-465. 

on  religion,  463-465. 
Lexicographers  and  Socialism,  365-369. 
Liars,  how  to  make,  of  children,  142. 
Liberal  Club,  discussion  at,  95,  96. 
Libertas,  German  edition  of  Liberty,  375. 

Most  on,  393-397. 
Liberty,  purpose  of,  30,  31. 

salutatory,  30,  31. 

tribute  to  Karl  Marx,  476-480. 
Liberty  and  aggression,  72-78. 

cannot  be  attained  by  denying  liberty, 
42. 

capitalists  deny,  454. 
the  condition  of  progress,  74. 
the  enemies  of,  30. 
essential  to  happiness,  41. 
the  greater  blessing,  98. 
K.  of  L.  opposed  to,  481-483. 
the  lesser  evil,  98. 
more  desirable  than  equality,  333. 
not  a  cure-all,  230. 
not  a  natural  right,  132. 
private  property  not  a  denial  of,  395, 
396- 

representing  Anarchism,  4. 

upheld  by  Anarchism,  132. 

what  it  will  do.  347,  348. 

will  not  bring  perfection.  98. 

will  realize  the  cost  principle,  286,  287. 

without  intelligence,  137. 

(See  also  Freedom.) 
Liberty   and  Property  Defence  League, 
criticism  of,  89-92. 

not  radical,  90. 
Liberty  0/ ownership  the  most  important, 
350- 

Life,  no  one  has  a  right  to,  144. 

Lingg,  L.,  on  the  verdict,  444,  445. 

Liquor,  sale  of,  Henry  George  on,  165. 

Literary  expression,  property  in,  128. 

Lloyd,  J.  William,  on  society,  35. 

Localization,  the  kind  of,  needed,  114. 

Love  between  parents  and  children,  142. 
paternal,  a  late  development,  147. 

Lum,  Dyer  D.,  on  the  advantage  of  be- 
ing in  jail,  418. 
does  not  strike  the  cause  of  tyranny,  148. 


Lum,   Dyer  D.,   does  not  understand 
mastership.  418. 
ignorant  of  true  methods,  418-420. 
on  methods,  417,  418. 
only  rights  the  existing  State,  418. 

Machines,  invention  and  manufacture  of, 
127. 

Mail-carrying.    (See  Letter-carrying.) 
Majority,  absolute  right  of,  8. 
has  right  to  make  laws,  46. 
liability  to  err,  120. 
Malon,  Benoit,  on  the  bourgeoisie,  pro- 
letariat, and  capitalism,  478,  479. 
on  Socialism,  477-479. 
Malthusianism   illustrated   by  a  fable, 
467-469. 

is  bad  political  economy,  466,  467. 

is  it  true  ?  336. 

no  remedy,  465-469. 
Maltreatment  of  children,  136,  145. 
Man,  God  an  enemy  of,  464. 
'■'■Man  vs.  the  State,"  by  H.  Spencer. 
37°.  37 

Manchester  school  of  economy,  10. 

Hyndman  on  the,  379. 
Manchesterism,  consistent,  is  Anarchism, 
404. 

Market,  right  to  a  free,  454. 
Marriage  an  absurdity,  15. 
Marx,  Karl,  authoritarianism  of,  477. 

compared  to  Proudhon,  10,  479,  480. 

conception  of  society,  375,  376. 

conception  of  the  State,  375,  376. 

criticised  by  Sumner,  372. 

economics  of,  6. 

the  founder  of  State  Socialism,  7. 
hatred  of  liberty,  476. 
and  the  labor  question,  476-480. 
Lazarus  on,  305. 
Liberty 'j  tribute  to,  476-480. 
love  for  equality,  476. 
memorial  services  of,  477. 
on  State  Socialism,  7. 
system  of,  dependent  upon  authority, 
375-377- 

Massachusetts  law  concerning  syphilis, 
169. 

Maternal  love,  147. 

McCarthy,  Judge,  on  God's  injunctions, 
163. 

McGlynn,  Dr.,  power  of  the  Church, 

McGregor,  J.  M.,  on  land,  273-275. 

on  money,  273-275. 
McKinley  bill,  its  effect  on  prices,  225. 
Medicine,  practice  of,  a  legal  monopoly, 
165,  166. 

Memorial  meeting  in  honor  of  Marx  at 

New  York,  477. 
Mental  maltreatment  of  children,  145. 
Merchandise  money,  Greene  on,  232. 
Methods  of  the  Chicago  Communists,  387, 

388. 

Lum  on,  417,  418. 

(See  also  Boycott.  Force,  Resistance. 
Revolution,  Secession.  Violence.) 
Middlemen,  importance  of,  292. 
Might  is  right,  24. 

the  only  right,  350. 
Military  spirit  encouraged  by  Church 
and  State,  140. 


506 


INDEX. 


Mill.  John  Stuart,  minority  representa- 
tion, 47. 

Minority,   withdrawal  of,  from  volun- 
tary associations,  57. 
Minority  representation,  47. 
Misinterpretation    of   Anarchism,  by 

J.  H.  Levy,  38-40. 
Mississippi  floods,  government  relief  of 

sufferers  from,  158. 
Modern  Socialism,  magnitude  of,  3. 
Money  cannot  be  used  by  one  person,  190. 
and  capital,  difference  between,  193, 

215,  216. 
circulation  of,  illustrated,  285. 
defined  by  Greene,  231. 
effect  of  an  abundance  of,  24.8. 
functions  of,  R.  E.  Thompson  on,  295, 
296. 

gold  and  silver,  fallacy  in  regard  to, 
198. 

government  should  not  issue,  265. 
issue  of,  tax  on  the,  252. 
McGregor  on,  273-275. 
monopoly  of,  11. 

the  most  perfect  form  of  capital,  215, 
216. 

must  be  secured,  276-278. 

not  a  natural  monopoly,  294,  295. 

the  proper  standard  of,  198. 

a  representative  of  wealth,  190. 

representative,  not  capital,  193. 

and  a  standard  of  value,  257-259. 

a  title  to  capital,  194. 

a  tool  used  by  all  trades,  230. 

(See   also    Capital,    Currency,  Free 

money,  Gold,  Interest,  Standard  of 

value.) 

Monopolies,  the  four  great,  11. 

the  two  greatest,  178. 
Monopolistic  rent,  300. 
Monopoly,  absence  of,  will  bring  price  to 
cost,  200. 

Anarchists  refuse  to  sustain,  341. 

the  cause  of  poverty,  27. 

census  taking  fatal  to,  461-463. 

conferred  by  government,  246,  247. 

effects  of,  53. 

for  the  benefit  of  a  large  class,  90. 

interest  a  tax  levied  by,  221,  222. 

money  not  a  natural,  294,  295. 

N.  Y.  Sun's  apologies  for,  455. 

the  practice  of  medicine  a,  165,  166. 

what  constitutes,  246,  247. 

(See  also  Government,  Privilege,  State.) 
Moral  law  of  Anarchism,  15. 
Moral  obligations.    (See  Duty.) 
Morality,  influences  that  work  for,  57,  58. 
Morley,  J ,  on  compromise,  425,  426. 
M or  monism,  Cleveland  on,  494,  495. 
Most,  John,  admits  that  Communism  is 
not  wholly  good,  395,  396. 

criticised  by  Sumner,  372. 

defends  the  fire-bugs,  432-434. 

dynamite  a  cure-all  with  him,  401. 

on  Libertas,  393-397. 

misconception  of  Proudhon,  394. 

not  an  Anarchist,  in,  112. 
Mothers,  right  of,  to  their  children,  147- 

M9-  \        .  . 

Motive  of  action  is  egoistic,  137. 
Mwder,  defensive  killing  not,  156. 
Music  halls,  argument  on  closing,  96. 


Mutual  bank  does  not  need  capital,  286, 
387. 

propaganda  in  Chicago,  252,  253. 
Mutual  banking,  cost  of,  265-269. 
Mutual  banks  of  issue,  11. 

practicability  of,  258. 

and  value  of  gold,  231-234. 

(See  also  Free  banks,  Land  bank.) 
Mutual  insurance,  E.  Atkinson  on,  281, 
282. 

Mutual  money,  Greene  on,  232. 

not  based  on  specie,  232. 
Mutualism  in  the  service  of  capital,  281, 

282. 

(See  also  Co-operation.) 

"Nation,"  N.  Y.,  pretends  belief  in  free 
contract,  460. 
on  the  price  of  labor,  493,  494. 
wants  strikers  punished,  459. 
National  banks  superior  to  State  banks, 
249. 

National  Woman  Suffrage  Association, 
Wm.  T.  Harris  before  the.  82-86. 

Natural  law,  enforcement  of,  not  a  part 
of  Anarchism,  57. 

Natural  monopoly,  money  not  a,  294, 
295- 

Natural-right  Anarchism  out  of  date, 
132. 

Natural  rights,  Anarchists  do  not  believe 
in,  169. 

Neo-Malthusians  believe  in  prevention, 
467. 

New  Abolitiofi,  the,  contradictory,  133, 
134. 

criticism  of  the,  133,  134. 
New  York  Sun.    (See  Sun,  N.  Y.) 
News,  Galveston,  on  the  functions  of 
money,  253,  254. 

non-appreciation  of  Atkinson,  284. 

on  a  standard  of  value,  253,  254. 

teaches  rational  finance,  284. 
Newspapers  asked  to  expose  the  fire-bugs, 

433-    ■  . 
unearned  increment  in,  355. 
Nine  demands,  the,  of  the  new  abolition. 
133.  134- 

No-rent  movement  in  Ireland,  412,  413. 

movement,  why  it  failed,  416. 
No-rule  a  self-contradiction.  82. 
Non-interference  in  doubtful  cases,  136. 
Non-resistance  and  passive,  79. 

a  plea  for,  67-72. 

a  self-contradiction.  8  a. 

(See  also  Passive  resistance.) 
Non-Resistants,  Anarchists  not,  52. 
Normal  earnings,  definition  of,  202. 
Notes,  the  discounting  of,  221. 

Obey,  not  the  duty  of  children  to,  142. 
Occupancy  of  land,  conditions  of,  324-326. 
O^Conor.  Charles,  an  Anarchist,  489,  490. 
Oglesby,  R.,  a  tool  of  capital,  446. 
Olerich,  H.,  Jr.,  on  promises,  157,  158. 
Open  Court  on  individual  sovereignty, 
*3*>  132. 

Order  upheld  by  Anarchism,  132. 
Organization  of  credit,  190,  191,  287,  288. 
Ostracism  and  invasion,  the  difference 

between.  153. 
Ownership,  anarchistic  criterion  of,  6j. 


INDEX. 


Ownership,  and   possession,  difference 
between,  130. 
comes  from  production,  127,  128. 
defined,  333~335- 
discovery  gives  no  right  to,  127. 
liberty  of,  the  most  important,  350. 
right  of,  Hugo  Bilgramon,  129,  130. 

Parental  love,  increase  of,  148. 
Parents,  joint  possession  of  children  by, 
148. 

relation  of,  to  children,  134-146. 
Parliament,  right  of,  to  repudiate,  150- 
152. 

Parnell,  C.  S.,  on  land,  299. 

Parsons,  Albert R.,  not  an  Anarchist,  tu. 

Passi7/e  resistance  and  non-resistance,  79. 

French's  ignorance  of,  422. 

Lassalle  on,  413. 

movement,  the  Land  League  a,  4x4. 
the  power  of,  411-413. 
(See  also  Non-resistance.) 
Patent  mo)iopoly,  13. 
Patents,  evils  of  granting,  167. 
Paternal  love  a  late  development,  147. 
Pennsylvania,  law  in,  concerning  but- 

terine,  170. 
Pentecost,  Hugh  O.,  an  abettor  of  govern- 
ment, 81,  82. 
belief  of,  in  the  ballot,  426,  427. 
definition  of  Anarchism,  364,  365. 
definition  of  Socialism  too  limited,  363- 
36S- 

on  the  value  of  land,  357. 
Perfection  cannot  be  reached  under  pres- 
ent conditions,  114. 

liberty  will  not  bring,  98. 
People,  Providence,  on  education,  164. 

on  taxes,  356. 

the  San  Francisco,  on  Anarchism,  415, 
416. 

Perrine,  F.  A.  C,  fruitless  attempts  of, 
to  understand,  50,  51. 
puppet  for  a  God,  46-50. 
Resistance  to  Taxation,  43-51. 
Perry  an  inconsistent  free  trader,  292, 
293« 

Petition,  the  right  of,  made  taxable,  160. 
Philanthropists,  George  on,  353. 
Philanthropy  cannot  excuse  plunder,  483- 
487. 

play-house,  at  Guise,  483-487. 
Physical  confict,  probability  of  a,  329. 
Physical  maltreatment  of  children,  145. 
Pinney,  Lucien  V.,  attacks  free  money, 
245,  246. 

believes  in  despotism,  115. 

a  Communist,  247. 

on  difference  between  prohibition  and 

tariff,  116. 
on  free  currency,  245,  246. 
his  ignorance  of  freedom,  248-251. 
on  the  incompetency  of  the  individual, 

120. 

on  the  post  office,  120-125. 

on  State  banks,  246,  247. 
Play-house ph  ilanthropy  at  Guise,483~487. 
Plimsoll,  Mr.,  on  rights  of  Parliament, 
150-152. 

Poets,  early  death  of,  desirable,  490,  491. 
Police,  blindness  of  the,  in  fire-bug  cases, 
432. 


Policemen,  Donisthorpe  on.  94. 
Policy,  anarchistic,  for  doubtful  cases, 
i35- 

Political  corruption,  weekly  Star  on, 
164,  165. 

Political  economists,  Ruskin  on,  182. 
Political  economy,  Manchester  school  of, 
10. 

Political  fetishes  all  alike. 

"Politician  in  Sight  of  Haven,''  by  A. 

Herbert.  469. 
Poll-tax,  collection  of,  420,  421. 
Pomeroy,  M.  M.,  on  currency,  276. 
Population,  centralization  of,  108. 

reduction  of,  cannot  help  labor,  466. 

question.  Walker  on,  466. 
"Position  of  William,'"  Ruskin  on,  181- 

.  ?83- 

Stimson  on,  199,  200. 
Possession  and  ew nership,  difference  be- 
tween, 130. 
Possession  under  liberty,  59,  60. 

(See  also  Ownership.) 
Postage,  injustice  of  second-class  rates, 
125. 

Post-lntelligencer,  Seattle,  on  Anar- 
chism, 169. 

Post  Office,  Lucien  Pinney  on  the,  120- 
125. 

Potter,  IV.  J.,  on  religion,  159,  160. 
Poverty,  the  cause  of,  54. 

the  result  of  monopoly-,  27. 
Powderly,  T.  V.,  on  the  age  of  consent, 
149,  150- 

on  the  use  of  dynamite,  480. 
Power  adds  to  itself,  8. 

can  be  starved  to  death,  415. 

how  it  can  be  destroyed,  415,  416. 

of  government  to  fix  value,  222-226. 
Practicability  of  mutual  banks,  258. 
Press,  blindness  of  the,  in  the  fire-bug 
cases,  432. 

liberty  of  the,  168. 
Press,  IVinsted,  on  higher  education,  164. 
Price  governed  by  cost,  200. 

labor  the  measure  of,  5. 
Price  of  labor,  N.  Y.  Nation  on,  493,  494. 
Prices  affected  by  the  McKinley  bill,  225. 
Prisons  may  be  superfluous,  27. 

under  Anarchy,  56. 
Private  enterprise  and  the  post  office, 
130-125. 

more  successful  than  government,  122. 
Private  property,  Avelingon,  378. 

Communists  on,  430. 

interest  not  dependent  on,  218,  219. 

Kropotkine  on,  388. 

not  a  denial  of  liberty,  395,  396. 

Proudhon  on,  394. 
Privilege  the  cause  of  usury,  6. 

wealth  a  legal,  361. 

(See    also    Government,  Monopoly, 
State.) 

Privileged  capital  first  point  of  attack 
465- 

Privileges  of  capitalists,  460,  461. 
and   capital,  State    Socialism  distin- 
guishes, 7. 
definition  of,  61. 
wages  should  equal,  241. 
what  is  a  complete,  244,  245. 
(See  also  Commodity.) 


5o8 


INDEX. 


Production,  free  banking  will  increase, 
243- 

increased  by  abolition  of  interest,  197 
on  a  large  scale,  394,  395. 
ownership  comes  from,  127,  128. 
two  modes  of  expending  labor  in,  127, 

J28. 

Productivity  0/  capital,  fiction  of,  300, 

302. 

Profit  affected  by  interest,  12. 

is  unjust,  6. 
Profit-sharing,  compulsory,  179. 

a  humbug,  290. 

a  robber  scheme,  487.  488. 
Progress,  liberty  the  condition  of,  74. 
Prohibition  denned,  119. 

the  duty  of  lawyers,  155. 

and  protective  tariff,  1 15-120. 

and  woman  suffrage,  159. 
Prohibition  of  government  by  itself,  117. 
Product  and  capital  identical,  10,  196. 
Promises,  enforcing  of  fulfilment  of,  158. 

the  keeping  of,  is  important,  51. 

H.  Olerich,  Jr.,  157,  158. 
Promises  to  pay,  variation  in  value  of, 
272. 

Propaganda,  where  best  carried  on,  423, 
424. 

Propagandism  by  deed  ,  432. 

by  resistance,  45. 
Property,  Byington  on,  348,  349. 

can  be  used  and  pledged,  231. 

chance  element  in,  272. 

defined  by  Proudhon,  391. 

in  literary  expression,  128. 

is  impossible  ;    Proudhon's  meaning, 
342- 

labor  should  be  put  in  possession  of,  4. 
labor  the  true  basis  of,  127. 
mental,  a  superstition,  261. 
perfection  of,  131. 

private,  interest  not  dependent  on,  218, 

219. 

Proudhon  on,  391,  392. 

right  to,  decided  by  juries,  212. 

a  social  convention,  61. 

under  Anarchism,  309-312. 

(See  also  Occupancy,  Ownership,  Pos- 
session, Private  property,  Wealth.) 
Property  in  ideas.    (See  Copyright,  Pat- 
ents.) 

Protection,  competitive,  326,  327. 
exchange  value  of,  326,  327. 
relation  of,  to  rent,  328,  329. 
and  rent,  327. 

secured  by  co-operation,  14. 
the  State  not  necessary  to,  54. 
value  of,  not  equal  to  rent,  330. 
(See  also  Defensive  association.) 
Protective  tariff,  Ingersoll  on,  496. 
is  invasion,  116. 

Lucien  V.  Pinney  on  the,  115-120. 
prohibition  and,  115-120. 
Protest,  Appleton  argues  against,  106- 

109. 

for'propagandism,  420,  421. 
importance  of,  112,  113. 
is  an  affirmation,  in. 
Proudhon,  Pierre  J.,  on  Anarchism,  9. 
Bank  of  Exchange,  288. 
Bank  of  the  People,  288. 
compared  to  K.  Marx,  10,  479,  480. 


Proudhon,    Pierre  /.,   discussion  with 
Bastiat,  196,  197. 

economics  of,  6. 

on  God,  14. 

on  government,  26. 

on  the  growth  of  ideas,  420. 

hates  Communism,  391-393. 

no  amateur,  243. 
•   phrase  "  Property  is  impossible,11  342. 

on  property,  391,  392. 

on  the  Revolution,  449. 

"  Revolution  of  the  19th  Century,'1  27- 
291  37- 

uses  words  in  different  senses,  301.  302. 
"  What  is  Property  ?  "  390-393,  420. 
Punishment,  capital,  156,  157. 
of  criminals  not  opposed,  52. 
of  invaders,  55. 

(See    also   Capital  punishment,  Pris- 
ons.) 

Punishments,  nature  of,  under  Anarchy, 

60. 

Purchasing  power  of  labor,  271,  272. 
Quacks  and  regular  physicians,  166. 

Race  experience,  act  according  to,  47. 

Rape,  Anarchism  and,  149,  150. 

Rate  of  interest  on  capital,  how  deter- 
mined, 207. 

Read,  F.  IV.,  on  abolition  of  taxation,  35. 
on  voluntary  taxation,  31,  32. 

Reason  the  basis  of  social  growth,  141. 

Rebels,  individuals  must  be,  114. 

Reciprocity  0/ credit,  242. 

Reciprocity  0/ debt,  242. 

Reform  communities  no   test  of  prin- 
ciples, 423. 

Reform  clubs  based  on  intolerance,  105. 
Donisthorpe  on,  89-97. 

Reform,  free  money  the  most  important, 
273*  274- 

Reformers,  Anarchists  should  not  hinder 
other, 48. 

Religion,  Anarchism  subversive  of,  24. 
Religious  liberty,  B.  W.  Ball's  apprecia- 
tion of,  53. 
Rent  and  the  abolition  of  the  State,  323. 

affected  by  interest,  12. 

annihilation  of,  300. 

collection  of,  by  force,  337-339. 

confiscation  of,  a  denial  of  liberty,  336. 

definition  of,  300,  303. 

effect  of  competition  on,  343. 

the  price  of  monopoly,  204,  205. 

and  protection,  327. 

relation  of,  to  protection,  328,  329. 

Ricardo^  theory  of,  a  true  one,  323. 

is  unjust,  6. 

use  of  the  word,  304. 

voluntary  associations  would  not  col- 
lect, 342. 

(See  also  Economic  rent,  Land,  Mo- 
nopolistic rent,  Single  tax, Unearned 
increment.) 
Rent  of  skill,  single-taxers  should  distrib- 
ute, 342. 
Representation,  minority,  47. 
Republ  icanization  of  specie,  283. 
Resistance,  propagandist!!  by,  45. 
Robinson  on,  68, 
rule  or,  75-78, 


INDEX. 


(See  also  Aggression,  Defence,  Inva- 
sion, Non-resistance,  Passive  resist- 
ance, Restraint.) 

Restraint  not  government,  39. 

Restriction  on  the  market,  454,  455. 

Restrictions  resulting  from  State  Social- 
ism, 377,  378. 

Revolution,  armed,  too  easily  put  down, 
440. 

bloody,  the  desire  of  tyrants,  413. 
by  force  to  be  avoided,  456. 
open,  means  sure  defeat,  415. 
social,  cannot  be  achieved  by  force, 

439'  , 

seen  and  not    foreseen,  449. 
when  the  time  is  ripe  for,  48. 
(See  also  Dynamite,  Force,  Resistance, 
Violence.) 

"Revolution  of  the  iqth  Century,'1''  from 

Proudhon,  27-29,  37. 
Revolution,  the,  Proudhon  on,  449. 
Revolutionary  methods  useless,  16. 
"Revolutionary  War  Science,"  by  John 

Most,  435. 
Reward  of  capital,  289,  290. 
Reward  of  labor  under  free  competition, 

302. 

Reward  of  usurer,  292. 
Ricardo,  D.,  theory  of  rent  is  true,  322, 
323> 

Right,  definition  of,  210. 

different  use  of  the  word,  130,  131. 
to  gamble,  272. 

to  keep  unearned  increment,  306. 
might  is,  24. 
might  the  only,  350. 
of  numbers,  59. 

social  expediency  the  only,  130. 

to  threaten,  153. 

(See  also  Might,  Egoism.) 
Right  of  ownership,  anarchistic  concep- 
tion of,  131. 

Bilgram  on,  129,  130. 
Rights  created  by  contract,  146. 

egoistic  position  regarding,  211. 

individual  has  no,  146. 

under  Anarchy,  58-60. 
Rigidity,  fear  of,  groundless,  312. 
Risk  taken  by  every  one,  241,  242. 
Robbery,  Communism  a  form  of,  248. 
Robinson,  John  Beverley,  advisability  of 
violence,  78-80. 

on  law,  73. 

liberty  and  aggression,  72-78. 

plea  for  non-resistance,  67-72. 

rule  or  resistance,  75-78. 
Rochefort,  H.,  on  Anarchists,  429. 
Rule  or  resistance,  75-78. 

superiority  will  always,  336. 
Ruskin,John,  compared  to  Herbert,  470, 

depreciates  liberty,  470,  471. 
first  letter  to  British  workingmen,  181 
-183. 

on  the  laborer's  deficit,  361,  362. 
"  Position  of  William,"  181-183,  199,  200. 
summary  of  Bastiat's  fable,  181-183. 
work  for  economic  equity,  470,  471. 

Safety  of  free  banks,  249. 
Sale  an  exchange  of  labor,  303. 
subtle  conditions  involved  in,  182. 


Scarcity  of  capital,  effect  of,  on  interest, 

230. 

Scheme,  profit-sharing  a  robber,  487,  488. 
Schemes,  failure  of,  232,  233. 
Schneider,  M.,  on  State  Socialism,  347. 
Schwab,  J ustus,  refuses  association  with 

fire-bugs,  432. 
Science,  tyranny  of,  154-156. 
Scramble,  danger  of  a,  A.  Herbert  on, 

Sea  water,  gold  and  silver  in,  259,  260. 
Secession,  right  of,  46. 
right  of,  from  voluntary  association, 

44.  ' 

to  deny  the  right  of,  is  slavery,  48. 

Security  of  money  essential  to  stable 
commerce,  276-278.: 

Self-interest,  "  Egoist  "  on,  338. 

Selfish,  expediency  not  necessarily,  64. 

Services  of  time,  when  valuable,  204. 

Sexes,  relations  of  the,  15. 

Sexual  association,  liberty  in,  149,  150. 

Shaw,  G.  Bernard,  on  freedom  in  fin- 
ance, 294. 

Shewitch,  S.,  debate  with  George,  321. 

Silver  in  sea  water,  259,  260. 

Simplifying  government,  George's  pre- 
tence of.  353. 

Single  tax,  Bilgram  on,  264. 
cannot  be  harmonized  with  Anarchism, 
346. 

and  free  money,  326. 

an  inquisition  needed  for,  354. 

leads  to  State  Socialism,  331-339. 

State  Socialism  more  logical  than,  331. 
Singie-taxers  on  land,  351. 
Skill  and  capital,  difference  between, 
202. 

effects  of,  can  be  distributed,  336. 
effects  of,  single  tax  should  distribute, 

338,  339- 
George  on,  201,  202. 
should  it  be  paid  ?  307. 
Slave  labor  compared  to  free,  460. 
Slavery,  arguments  of  its  supporters,  53. 
land-holding    compared     to,    by  H. 

George,  352. 
too  high  a  price  for  insurance,  158,  159. 
Smith,  Adam,  on  the  measure  of  price, 
5- 

Social  contract,  25. 

denied  by  Anarchists,  32. 
Social  convention,  enforcement  of,  64. 

property  is  a,  61. 
Social  conventions,  why  enforced,  64. 
Social  expediency,  standard  of,  130. 
Social  growth,  reason  the  basis  of.  T41. 
Social  institutions.    (See  Institutions.) 
Social  life,  Anarchism  the  fundamental 

principle  of,  80. 
Social  relations,    interdependency  of 

various,  143. 
Social  revolution  cannot  be  achieved  by 

force,  439. 
Socialism,  aim  of,  362. 

an  American  growth,  6. 

Anarchism  the  only  true,  362,  363. 

defined  by  Pentecost,  363-365. 

definitions  of,  366-369. 

function  of,  5. 

ignorance  concerning,  4. 

and  the  lexicographers,  365-369. 


INDEX. 


Socialism,  B.  Malon  on,  477-479. 
the  anti-theft  movement,  36a. 
the  term  monopolized  by  State  Social- 
ists, 363,  364. 
(See    also    Anarchism,  Communism, 
State  Socialism.) 
Socialisms,  the  two,  contrasted  by  E.  Le- 
signe,  16-18. 
(See  also  Anarchism,  Capital,  Com- 
munism,   Democracy,  Government, 
Labor,    Modern    Socialism,  State, 
State  Socialism  ) 
Socialists,  foreign,  morality  of,  462,  463. 
Socialists  the  only  moral  class,  362. 
Society  an  aggregation  of  individuals,  35. 
Anarchists  believe  in,  85. 
Anarchists  would  not  kill,  36. 
anti-social  at  present,  361,  362. 
freedom  in,  85. 

the  laborer's  desire  for,  314,  315. 
man's  dearest  possession,  321,  322. 

Sociological  distinctions  cannot  always 
be  drawn,  81. 

Solution,  free  land  alone  no,  313. 

Sovereignty  of  the  individual,  13,  106. 

Sovereignty,  Individual,  has  no  alterna- 
tive but  authority,  376. 

Specie,  repubhcanization  of,  283. 

Specie  fraud,  the,  198. 

Spelling  reform,  242,  243. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  criticised  by  Andrews, 
37°.  37  *• 

Spies,  A.,  words  of,  on  the  scaffold,  448. 

law  of  equal  freedom,  137. 

man  vs.  the  State,  370,  371. 

origin  of  the  State,  75. 

on  poverty,  370,  371. 

his  relation  to  anarchism,  103. 

right  to  ignore  the  State,  27. 

the  sin  of,  370,  371. 
Spooner,    Lysander,    letter    to  Grover 
Cleveland,  48. 

memorial  resolutions  for,  491-493. 

trial  by  jury,  442,  443. 

trial  of  John  Webster,  62. 

work  of,  for  freedom,  492,  493. 
Standard,  a  fixed,  of  value,  A.  Herbert 

on.  310,  311. 
Standard  of  value  compared  to  a  stand- 
ard of  length,  255. 

Galveston  News  on  a,  253,  254. 

how  constituted,  253. 

indispensable,  252,  253. 

necessity   for,   the  simplest  financial 
truth,  258. 

Westrup  on  a,  256,  257. 
Standards  of  value  all  variable,  255,  256. 
Stanford,  Leland,  his    bank  a  revolu- 
tion, 278. 

his  Land  Bank,  278-280. 

his  originality  a  myth,  280. 
Starved  out,  how  Uncle  Sam  can  be,  411- 

State,  Abolition  of,  necessary  to  individ- 
ualism, 113. 
abolition  of  the,  and  rent,  323. 
Anarchists  favor  the,  as  defined  by  Har- 
ris, 84. 

Anarchists  protest  against  every  form 

Of.  I  IT. 

B.  W.  Ball's  opposition  to  the,  52. 
best  means  of  righting  the,  114. 


State,  can  be  restrained,  38. 
the  century's  battle  with,  31. 
chief  invader,  39. 
definition  of  the.  22.  23. 
different  from  a  voluntary  association, 

43-51*  341. 
different  from  society,  35. 
effect  of  abolition  of,  on  rent,  323. 
must  be  destroyed,  447. 
must  be  made  unnecessary,  31. 
the  nature  of  the,  34-38. 
necessity  of  abolishing  the,  14. 
needed  to  maintain  Communism,  399, 

400. 

not  a  concrete  organism,  35. 

not  an  outgrowth  of  Anarchy,  329,  330. 

not  founded  on  contract,  32. 

not  non-invasive.  62. 

originated  in  aggression,  22,  75. 

relation  of  the  individual  to,  21-29. 

the  right  to  ignore  the,  27. 

a  social  organism,  32. 

(See  also  Authority,  Compulsory  co- 
operation. Defensive  association, 
Government,  Voluntary  associa- 
tions.) 

State  banks  different  from  free  banks, 
245,  246. 
inferior  to  national  banks.  249. 
State  Socialism  and  Anarchism,  3-18. 
and  Anarchism,  Wm.  T.  Harris  on,  82- 
86. 

and  Anarchism,  no  halting  between, 

3*9- 

definition  of,  7. 

distinguishes    between     capital  and 

product,  7. 
impairs  individuality,  8. 
leads  to  slavery,  378,  379. 
more  logical  than  single  tax,  331. 
necessarily  aggressive.  377,  378. 
representing  authority,  4. 
M.  Schneider  on,  347. 
tyranny  of,  8. 

(See  also  Anarchism.  Authority.  Capi- 
tal, Communism,  Competition,  Co. 
operation,  Democracy,  Freedom, 
Government,  Labor,  Liberty.  State.) 

Stale  Socialists  more  logical  than 
George,  315,  316. 

Steal,  teaching  a  child  to,  142. 

Stimson,  F.  /.,  false  criticism  of  Rus- 
kin,  199. 

Stimer,  Max.  (See  Schmidt,  Caspar,) 
Strikers,  the  N.  Y.  Nation  wants  them 

punished,  459. 
Strikes  not  invasive,  162,  163. 
Stuart,  Frank  Q.,  New  Abolition,  133, 

134- 

Subordination  taught  in  schools,  140. 
Sumner,  Prof,  fear  of  laissez  faire,  371- 
.  374- 

ignorance  of.  371-374. 

on  labor's  lack  of  capital,  372. 

lecture  on  Socialism  at  New  Haven, 

on3  KarLMarx,  372. 
on  John  Most,  372. 
not  a  consistent  free  trader,  374. 
on  taxation,  372-374. 
••  Sun"  N.  Y.,  an  apologist  for  monopoly, 
455- 


INDEX. 


5" 


"Sum,"  N.V.,  on  the  Homestead  strike, 

453- 

on  law-breaking.  i63,  169. 

libertarian  pretence  of,  354. 

on  the  N.  Y.  fire-bugs.  435-439' 
Superiority  will  always  rule,  336,  337. 
Superstitions,  economic,  regarding  gold, 
260.  261. 

Supreme  Court  0/  Hi.  and  the  Commu- 
nists, 446-448. 
at  one  with  the  Communists,  447,  448. 

Surplus  value.  Jus  on.  495,  496. 
(See  also  Discount,  I.terest,  Profits, 
Rent,  Usury  . ) 

Sivain,  J.  H.,  opinion   of,  concerning 
force,  440,  441. 

Syphilis.  Massachusetts  law  concerning, 
169. 

Tariff  monopoly,  12. 

as  an  advantage,  13 
Tarn,  A.,  on  crystalline  customs,  309, 
310. 

on  property  in  land,  309,  310. 
Ta.r,  bank  discount  is  a,  207. 

imposition  of,  limits  competition,  1*3. 

interest  a,  221,  222. 

on  the  issue  of  money,  252. 
Tax-collector,  interview  with  a,  420,  421. 
Taxation  an  invasion,  62. 

and  Anarchism,  56. 

Byington  on,  348,  349. 

not  coextensive  with  government,  43. 

is  robbery,  420,  421. 

reductio  ad  absurdum  of,  160. 

resistance  to,  43-51. 

the  root  of  monopoly,  14. 

the  root  of  invasion,  37. 

Sumner  on,  372  374. 

(See  also  Compulsory  taxation,  Free 
trade,  Protective  tariff,  Single  tax, 
Voluntary  taxation.) 
Taxes  are  all  artificial,  354. 
collection  of,  an  aggression,  25. 
H.  George  believes  in  several,  356,  357. 
Teacher,  Harris  not  a  competent,  86. 
Teaching,  Kropotkine  likes  easy,  408. 
Tenant,  landlord  no  right  to  share  the 

labor  of,  308. 
Terrorism,  where  expedient,  428,  429. 
Theft,  abettor  of,  U.  S.  Grant  an,  159. 
Theory  of  interest,  George's,  criticised, 
201. 

Thieves,  brotherhood  of,  Dana  a  mem- 
ber, 456. 
Frick  a  member.  456. 

Thompson,  R.  £.,  on  free  trade  in  money, 
295,  296. 

Threaten,  the  right  to,  153. 

Time  argument  of  Henry  George,  204, 
205. 

and  labor,  204,  205. 

services,  gratuitous,  204. 
Title  to  land,  the  only  just,  61. 
Title  to  ivealth,  mutual  money  is  a,  233. 
To-day^s  "  dodging"  of  the  interest  ques- 
tion, 220,  221. 

on  capital,  217-222. 

on  interest.  217-219. 
Tools,  labor's  necessity  for,  314,  315. 
Topolobampo  Colony,  Chicago  Unity  on, 
166. 


Tory,  W.  Donisthorpe  mistaken  for  a,  90. 
Trade,    balance  of,   protectionists  on, 

292,  293. 

Trade  unions  believers  in  authority,  458. 
Tragedy,  Chicago,  448,  449. 
Tram-ways  as  monopolies.  90. 
Transfer  papers,  interest  a  tax  on,  214. 
Trial  by  jury,  Spooner  on,  442,  443. 
I   Trumbull,  M.  M.,  criticism  of  finance, 
279. 

!   Truth,  the  ballot  not  a  test  of,  82. 

bravery  sustained  at  the  cost  of.  446. 
'   Truth,  N.  Y.,  on  surplus  wealth,  177. 
;    Truth  Seeker,  N.  Y.,  on  equal  liberty,  65. 
Tucker,  B.  R.,  on  the  labor  problem,  474. 
Tyranny  of  compulsory  arbitration,  172, 
173- 

!     cause  of,  113. 

,      (See  also  Aggression.  Despotism,  Gov- 
ernment, Invasion,  State.) 
Tyrants  desire  a  bloody  revolution,  413. 

Uncle  Sam,  how  he  can  be  starved  out, 
411-413. 

Unearned  increment,  confiscation  of,  325. 

in  large  newspapers,  355. 

of  ability,  323. 

right  to  keep,  306. 
Unpaid  labor  Khz  Socialist  complaint,  403. 
Unsocial  conduct,  Anarchy  will  minimize, 
144. 

Use  of  capital,  compensation  for,  189. 
Usurer,  reward  of,  292. 
Usurers,  who  are,  178. 
Usurpatfon,  the  State  is  a,  45. 
Usury,  basis  of,  178. 

competition  fatal  to,  344,  345. 

dependent  on  monopoly,  27. 

freedom  of  credit  will  abolish,  396. 

and  the  K.  of  L.,  291. 

principal  forms  of.  275. 

the  result  of  privilege,  6. 

(See  also  Discount,  Interest,  Profits, 
Rent,  Surplus  value.) 
Utilitarians,  Anarchists  are,  24. 

Vaccination,  compulsory,  104. 
Value,  variations  in,  272. 
(See  also  Standard  of  value.) 
I   Values,  the  power  of  government  over, 
222-226. 

;  Veuillot,  L.,  compared  to  Frick,  457,  458. 
Violence,  advisability  of,  78-80. 

and  liberty.  439-442. 

what  upholders  of,  should  expect.  442. 

when  advisable,  70,  71. 
i  Virtue  not  promoted  by  jails  alone,  58. 
!   Voltaire,  Francois  A .  de.  on  God,  14. 
,   Voluntary  association  protecting  users 
of  land,  311,  312. 

and  the  State,  difference  between,  43- 
i  51- 

Voluntary  associations  are  not  States,  3S. 
I      "  Egoist  "  on,  339,  340. 

enforce  their  regulations,  44. 

jury  service  may  be  a  condition  of 
membership  in,  56. 

no  conflict  between,  104. 

will  exist  as  long  as  needed,  340,  341. 

would  not  collect  rent,  342. 

(See  also  Defensive  association,  Pro- 
tection, Punishment.) 


INDEX. 


Voluntary  co-operation,  41,  103-105. 
I'oluntary  taxation  means  dissolution 
of  the  State,  31. 
strengthens  credit,  36. 

Wage  of  labor  is  its  product,  6. 

only  just  income,  6. 
Wages  defined,  241. 

determined  by  interest,  293. 

iron  law  of,  persists  under  monopoly, 
466. 

should  equal  product,  241. 
and  the  tariff,  115. 

(See  also  Labor,   Product,  Reward, 
Skill.) 

Wagner,  Richard,  "  Parsifal,"1  copyright 

on,  171,  172. 
Wakeman,  T.  B.,  as  fanatical  as  a  priest, 

on  prohibition,  154-156. 
Walker,  E.  C,  on  colonization,  423,  424. 
on  domestic  economy,  465. 
incendiary  Malthusian  utterance  of, 
469. 

Walker,  Francis  A.,  on   the  Chicago 

Communists,  386-393. 
fairness  of,  all  a  pretence,  384,  385. 
fundamental  error  of,  386. 
lecture  before  the  Trinity  Club,  383- 

393- 

on  Kropotkine,  386-393. 
refuses  correction,  385,  386. 
War,  Industrial,  how  to  prevent,  460, 
461. 

Liberty  engaged  in,  423. 
Warren.  Josiah,  an  American,  6. 
on  Anarchism,  9. 
economics  of,  6. 

father  of  the  cost  principle,  307. 
labor  note  of,  192. 


Wealth  cannot  become  worthless,  399. 

a  legal  privilege,  361. 

method  of  obtaining,  177. 

the  monetization  of,  needed,  374. 

mutual  money  a  title  to,  233. 

should  be  owned  by  labor,  185. 

two  ways  of  distributing,  347. 
Weekly  "Star"  on  political  corruption, 
164,  165. 

Wells,  David  A.,  free  trade  of,  a  sham, 
292,  293. 

Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  carry  letters  cheaper 

than  the  post  office,  121. 
Westrup,  A.  B.,  criticised  by  J.  Greevz 
Fisher,  227-229. 
faithful  work  for  freedom,  258. 
heresy  of,  on  a  standard  of  value,  257- 
259. 

on  a  standard  of  value,  256,  257. 
"  What  is  Property!"'  P.J.Proudhon,  390- 
393- 

Where  we  stand,  52-55. 
Whitman,  Walt,  outlives  his  usefulness, 
491. 

Wilde,  O.,  and  individualism,  379. 
William  I.  of  Germany  lived  too  long, 
490,  491. 

Wines,  F.  H. ,  proportion  of  foreign  crim- 
inals, 462,  463. 
speech  of,  before  the  Prison  Congress, 
462,  463. 

Winsted  Press.    (See  Press,  Winsted.) 
Woes  of  an  Anarchist,  by  W.  Donis- 

thorpe,  86-97. 
Woman  suffrage  and  prohibition,  159. 
"  Words  0/ a  Rebel,"  P.  Kropotkine,  387  ■ 

389. 

Work  and  Wages  on  Atkinson,  495. 
World,  N.  F.,  compares  land  with  news 
papers,  354,  355. 


4 


PUBLISHED  WEEKLY. 

BENJ.  R.  TUCKER,  Editor. 

The  Pioneer  Organ  of  Anarchism  in  America. 

TWO    DOLLARS    A  YEAR. 

A  thoughtful,  resolute,  unique,  uncompromising,  unterrified,  consist- 
ent, severely  critical,  able,  fair,  and  honest  exponent  of  the  doctrine  that 
Equal  Liberty  is  the  necessary  basis  of  Social  Harmony. 

A  journal  edited  to  suit  its  editor,  not  its  readers.  If  it  suits  its 
readers,  so  much  the  better. 


UNPARALLELED  PREMIUM. 

THE  MOST  VALUABLE  EVER  OFFERED  BY  A  NEWSPAPER. 

Every  person  sending  $2.00  in  payment  for  one  year's  subscription 
'to  Liberty  receives  during  the  period  of  this  subscription,  and  as  long 
thereafter  as  he  may  continue  to  be  a  subscriber,  the  privilege  of  buying 
books,  periodicals,  and  stationery  at  wholesale  prices.    Circular  fully  de- 
scribing this  premium-offer  sent  on  application. 


AN  IMPORTANT  FEATURE 

of  Liberty  is  the  publication  in  its  pages,  each  week,  of  a  department 
called 

THE  SOCIOLOGICAL  INDEX, 

in  which  are  catalogued  all  important  articles  on  sociological  subjects  ap- 
pearing in  the  periodical  press  of  the  world.  Furthermore,  the  publisher 
of  Liberty  supplies,  in  the  form  of  clippings  and  at  a  low  price,  the 
articles  thus  catalogued. 


Send  all  subscriptions  to 

Benj.  R.  Tucker, 

P.  O.  Box  131  2,  NEW  YORK  CITY, 


Anarchistic 
Literature. 

Any  of  the  following  works  sent  post-paid,  on  receipt  of  price,  by 

BENJ.  R.  TUCKER, 

P.  O.  BOX  1312,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


WHAT  IS  PROPERTY?  Or,  An  Inquiry  into  the  Principle  of 
Right  and  of  Government.  By  P.  J.  Proudhon.  Translated  from 
the  French  by  Benj.  R.  Tucker.  500  pages.  Cloth,  $2.00  ;  paper, 
$1.20. 

SYSTEM  OF  ECONOMICAL  CONTRADICTIONS;  or,  The 

Philosophy  of  Misery.  By  P.  J.  Proudhon.  Translated  from  the 
French  by  Benj.  R.  Tucker.    469  pages.    Cloth,  $2.00. 

MUTUAL  BANKING.  Showing  how  Interest  can  be  Abolished. 
By  Wm.  B.  Greene.    25  cents. 

A  LETTER  TO  GROVER  CLEVELAND  on  his  false  Inaugural 
Address  (in  1885),  the  usurpations  and  crimes  of  lawmakers  and 
judges,  and  the  consequent  poverty,  ignorance,  and  servitude  of 
the  people.    By  Lysander  Spooner.    1 10  pages.    35  cents. 

FREE  POLITICAL  INSTITUTIONS:  Their  Nature,  Essence, 
and  Maintenance.  An  Abridgment  and  Rearrangement  of  Lysander 
Spooner's  "Trial  by  Jury."  Edited  by  Victor  Yarros.  47  pages. 
25  cents. 

THE  ANARCHISTS.  A  Picture  of  Civilization  at  the  Close  of  the 
Nineteenth  Century.  By  John  Henry  Mackay.  Translated  from 
the  German  by  George  Schumm.  305  pages.  Cloth,  $1.  00 
paper,  50  cents. 

A  VINDICATION  OF  NATURAL  SOCIETY.  By  Edmund 
Burke.    36  pages.    10  cents. 

WORK  AND  WEALTH.    By  J.  K.  Ingalls.    16  pages.    10  cents. 

SOCIAL  WEALTH.    By  J.  K.  Ingalls.    320  pages.    Cloth,  $1.00. 

GOD  AND  THE  STATE.  By  Michael  Bakounine.  Translated 
from  the  French  by  Benj.  R.  Tucker.    52  pages.    15  cents. 

A  POLITICIAN  IN  SIGHT  OF  HAVEN:  Being  a  Protest 
against  the  Government  of  Man  by  Man.  By  Auberon  Herbert. 
10  cents. 

TAXATION  OR  FREE  TRADE.  A  Criticism  upon  Henry 
George's  "  Protection  or  Free  Trade."  By  John  F.  Kelly. 
16  pages.    5  cents. 


AVERT 


